[standards-jig] Future Client Expectations

DJ Adams dj.adams at pobox.com
Wed Apr 3 06:55:14 UTC 2002


On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 10:58:46PM -0600, Thomas Muldowney wrote:

> that they had to interact with.  Recently, the computer industry has
> found it necessary to only have a few apps that handle tons of things,
> or as Ryan puts it, the Craftsman 10 in 1 wrench.  No body seems to care
> about the single wrench anymore, with slightly different handles or

I care. I hate bloat, I don't like the fact that we're moving towards
such a 10 in 1 wrench.

I've always maintained that a piece of software should be designed for
the job, not designed for every job. I know it's perhaps a silly 
example, but look at sjabber. While it's not everyone's cup of 
tea, it's an extreme example of 'focused' application.

This idea of course extends into the 'stub' idea, using Jabber as a
transport layer for facilitating cross-NAT and other types of app to
app communication.

> So my question is, how much would people accept in our new protocol
> extensions?  Can we start to incorporate XPath safely (I doubt it),

I am not a 'proper' client developer, but there'd be even less chance
of me becoming one the more complex the requirements on clients were.

That said, if XPath, or whatever, is necessary for a particular 
application of Jabber, then by all means use it at the client end.
Just don't make it a requirement for all clients. 

That's my take
dj



More information about the Standards mailing list