[Operators] Future of XMPP Re: The Google issue
stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Dec 4 08:52:53 UTC 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 12/3/13 5:02 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 03.12.2013 23:55, schrieb Solomon Peachy:
>> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:03:27PM +0100, Alexander Holler
>>> So you think it is an elegant way that if a machine wants to
>>> send 10 binary bytes to another machine, it is ok to put them
>>> into mime64, pack that into XML, authorize and authenticate
>>> with an XMPP-server. doing the necessary presence stuff to
>>> finally send out a message or iq-stanza?
>> It sounds like your objection is to the use of XMPP more so than
>> its use of XML. If you don't want (or need) XMPP's feature set
>> (discoverability, authentication, presence, security, etc) then
>> why would you use it to begin with? If you do need that feature
>> set, then you're going to have to deal with the complexity those
>> features necessarily entail.
> In fact I like XMPP, mostly because it's an open standard and it
> got many concepts right and worked out (specified) well. What I
> don't like about XMPP is the XML part and the need for TCP but one
> can't have everything.
It sounds like you might want something like stanza.io with WebSocket
or BOSH. As a client-side API, neither XML nor TCP is absolutely
necessary these days.
-----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