[Operators] Future of XMPP Re: The Google issue
stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Dec 3 18:03:15 UTC 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 12/3/13 10:49 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 03.12.2013 15:11, schrieb Matthew Wild:
>> On 3 December 2013 08:11, Alexander Holler <holler at ahsoftware.de>
>>> Am 02.12.2013 18:50, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>>>> On 12/1/13 4:34 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>>> Hmm, I wouldn't want the overhead of an XML-streaming parser
>>> for M2M. Also XML makes it very easy for humans to read and
>>> debug the communication, a streaming XML-parser isn't that
>>> ideal for M2M.
>> I can't believe that it's the end of 2013, I can play multiplayer
>> 3D games with realistic textures smoothly in my browser over a
>> low-latency fibre-optic connection direct to my home, data
>> centres now internally have 1, 10, or 100 Gigabit links, and
>> people are STILL complaining about the "overhead" of XML (quoted
>> because nobody ever seems to provide numbers to back up this
>> statement). And if we're talking about low-power embedded
>> devices, even the latest Arduino boards run Linux now.
> And even in 2013 you don't want to harm people because your Linux
> system has gone crazy or your jvm decided to make a gc. Maybe we
> are talking about different types of machines, but I do associate
> machines often with stuff which has to be treated carefully.
> Anyway, the tone of your response just proved how unfriendly some
> parts of the XMPP community seem to have become.
Alexander, Matthew Wild is one of the friendliest people you could
ever meet. Perhaps something he said sounded "off" to you, but I don't
think he was being unfriendly.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Operators