[standards-jig] Namespaces

Craig ckaes at jabber.com
Tue Aug 6 19:37:12 UTC 2002

Shorter is great for all open source endeavors.  However, corporate 
entities will have development roadmaps extending out over a year. 
There just isn't motivation to drop what was deemed strategic to a 
company's success to pick up an "urgent" project like this.

<server-developer-bias> Proper server side namespace support seems like 
a big enough deal without having to worry about clients partially 
implementing namespaces.  If we do it, let's forget feature negotiation 
to support lesser clients.  Lesser clients are clients that are no
longer under development or are unwilling to provide full namespacing 
support.  </server-developer-bias>


Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> I like this goal, and as a matter of fact Rob already started putting
> more complete namespace support in jabberd 1.5.  Also, I'm assuming when
> you say community you mean everyone, including such folks as tipic,
> jinc, etc?  Is this feasible?  We'll need people from the different
> server projects to speak up for sure.  One other thought, a year seems
> like a long time.  Is there reasoning to not look at shortening the time
> to as short as possible?
> --temas
> On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 12:55, Dave Smith wrote:
>>Ok, we've danced around the issues for a while. Time to get serious and 
>>deal with namespaces and Jabber. While the XML that Jabber generates 
>>(externally) is correctly namespaced, the server itself has no knowledge 
>>of namespaces.  As a person who is working on a new client with full 
>>support for namespaces, I can safely say that having the server _appear_ 
>>to support namespaces can cause many headaches. So where do we go from 
>>I would like to see us as a community set a date goal for ourselves to 
>>having proper namespace support in our servers. I believe we must do 
>>this to provide sufficient motivation to have the transition complete 
>>within a finite amount of time. My guess is that this transition will 
>>take at most a year (September 1, 2003)? During this timespan we would 
>>probably have breakage with clients that don't support properly 
>>namespaced connections, so we'd have to work through some strategies for 
>>figuring out at connection time whether or not a client has full 
>>namespace support; one way of doing this would be to have namespaced 
>>servers and clients using a different port; or vice-versa.
>>These points are all just a starting point for this process, but I 
>>believe that we _must_ pursue full namespace compliance in the near 
>>Comments? :)
>>Standards-JIG mailing list
>>Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig

More information about the Standards mailing list