[standards-jig] JNG Ramblings.

David Waite mass at akuma.org
Fri Aug 9 03:28:32 UTC 2002

If its a framing protocol, you can feasably export the individual 
channels (from BEEP terminology) as a java.io.InputStream, which you 
could then wrap in a InputStreamReader and set as an InputSource for the 
SAX parser :-)

-David Waite

Justin Kirby wrote:

>Right now, I take a tcp stream and pass that as the document source to a
>SAX parser. viola jabber client :)
>I am under the impression that this brain dead technique would no long
>be feasible under this JNG?
>On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 22:35, Mike Lin wrote:
>>>I second Matthias Wimmer's -1 to binary wire protocol. I know it would 
>>>make things increadibly easy for the server and programs, but difficult 
>>>for developers and admins.
>>I now have something that for the past year has been severely lacking in
>>all these discussions: code.
>>The Jabber XML Streams implementation I did in OCaml this summer is
>>about 600 lines of code in all, not counting the special XML parser I
>>had to write to make it work.
>>I wrote something to read my binary wire protocol and envelope format
>>yesterday afternoon. It's about 250 lines of code, and I'm a lot more
>>confident that it works right.
>>As I've been saying, I'm working hard to find the right blend so that we
>>get the benefits of the binary framing without sacrificing too much of
>>the protocol's elegance. The protocol even in raw form is still
>>perfectly readable in ethereal (there are just a few extra bytes spread
>>here and there), which I think matters much more than telnet-and-type.
>>Anyway, this is a question over which reasonable people can disagree. I
>>have thought for a long time, and I've become more convinced by
>>implementing it, that by using a binary protocol for framing we can get
>>enormous benefits for acceptable cost.
>>Standards-JIG mailing list
>>Standards-JIG at jabber.org

More information about the Standards mailing list