[standards-jig] Publish-Subscribe JEP status

Piers Harding piers at ompa.net
Thu Apr 11 17:50:16 UTC 2002


OK -I'm up for that.

Fundamentally we need to come up with something that can work as close as possible with the existing Jabber protocol set ( client and component ).  After that I would agree that we need to work towards the next generation protocol as a whole - so what ever we come up with, needs to leave the door open for that.
But above all - we need to move quickly as pubsub ( if you look arround ) is a MAJOR topic of interest on the Net at the moment, and if Jabber is to take it's rightful place in that, we need to get cracking.

So would it be a good starting point be to define two things:

(a) the protocol requirement to support pubsub, and to do it within the existing base Jabber protocol
(b) the additions or rework to support JNG

>From this we could work out what of the JNG stuff could go into (a) without breaking it, and making the uptake to difficult for existing client developers etc., and then ear mark the rest for what needs to revisited for version 2.0, when we get a JNG backbone to work with.

And just an aside - surely these kind of issues crop up across the board, for most protocol discussions?  Aren't there all kinds of mods that could be required to support JNG?  Maybe this should be a separate JEP in itself - migration guidelines/strategy to JNG.

Cheers.


On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 12:07:26PM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Well, I think we can work all this out and come up with a protocol that
> works for everyone. I think the protocols/implementations designed by Rob,
> you + DJ, and Dizzy + his team were all made to meet slightly different
> needs. However I also think there's enough commonality here to come up
> with something that addresses all the requirements you guys have seen. As
> far as I can see no one is trying to pre-empt or discard anyone else's
> work. But maybe I'm missing something, since I often am. ;)
> 
> Peter
> 
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> email+jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
> weblog: http://www.saint-andre.com/blog/
> 
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Piers Harding wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I have to say to this, that DJ and my self were careful to talk to at least a few people along the way, ever since we started looking into pubusb, inorder to make sure that there was at least some awareness of what we were doing.  This was to achieve several things:
> > (a) make sure that Temas was OK with what we were doing with regard to his previous works
> > (b) make sure that we weren't conflicting with something else that may have been going on
> > 
> > I personally feel like I have wasted some of my valuable time, over this, purely because there has been a  lack of communication that should be more forth coming in an Open Source project.  ie.  JINC product designs mean nothing to me, as they are purely commercial, where I am not.  This is a conflict in terms of how I believe an Open Source project should orient itself.
> > 
> > Piers Harding - += 0.02
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 04:29:33PM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, DJ Adams wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:29:51AM -0600, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > If I were to pick a point of discontent, it would be the fact that I'm
> > > > > > just a little concerned that nothing has been really said until recently.
> > > > > 
> > > > > You mean that no one from JINC said anything until recently?
> > > > 
> > > > Well, it does seem to have been a _bit_ mysterious, finding out about
> > > > this new 3rd angle only recently - perhaps it's just my suspicious 
> > > > nature - it's probably paranoia or something on my part, sorry :-)
> > > > It's just that I saw a Pubsub item on the JabberConf schedule a while
> > > > ago, and was wondering what it was about (whether it was the talk I'd
> > > > originally suggested as an example - bearing in mind I can't attend
> > > > on these new dates - or something else...).
> > > 
> > > Hrm, probably it's because these pubsub discussions came about as part of
> > > intense product design sessions and no one thought to (or had time to) go
> > > public with them in any way. I'm happy that Diz is taking the initiative
> > > here to make sure we all coordinate. And yes, AFAIK the JabberConf pubsub
> > > item was the one you proposed and that Piers said he might be able to do.
> > > Not sure where that stands now, though....
> > > 
> > > Peter
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Peter Saint-Andre
> > > email+jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
> > > weblog: http://www.saint-andre.com/blog/
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Standards-JIG mailing list
> > > Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> > _______________________________________________
> > Standards-JIG mailing list
> > Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig



More information about the Standards mailing list