[Operators] Future of XMPP Re: The Google issue
holler at ahsoftware.de
Wed Dec 4 11:00:35 UTC 2013
Am 04.12.2013 09:52, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 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.
And it never was. I always could add another layer to get rid of the
More information about the Operators