[standards-jig] JNG Ramblings.

Adam Theo theo at theoretic.com
Fri Aug 9 19:18:29 UTC 2002

I like this idea, too. But I don't think this is *quite* the issue being 
discussed. I'm also uneducated about this, BTW, so someone please 
correct me if I'm wrong.

The "message framing" being talked about is not about the XML packet 
itself or its byte size. It is more of a "hello, get ready" message from 
the sender to the receiver. It is simply to tell the receiver that a 
packet is on the way, or some such...

Of course, now that I write it, I'm sure I'm wrong, but then I really 
wrote this to be corrected by someone who knows better   :)

If your below suggestion is the issue, then I think it is the best solution.

Jonathan Pobst wrote:
> You'll have to excuse my likely uneducated question, but why wouldn't
> something like this work just as well?
> <route to='someone at jabber.org' from='me at jabber.org' xmlns='jabber2:message'
> size='123'/>
> <route to='someone at jabber.org' from='me at jabber.org' xmlns='jabber2:message'>
>   <message type='chat'><body>Hey There!</body></message>
> </route>
> The first message is basically the envelope stuff that is being proposed,
> which is then followed up the actual message.
> This seems to accomplish the benefit of not having the server parse the
> actual message.  It would read the first message (which it would have to do
> for the envelope stuff anyways in the 'binary wire' stuff).  It would then
> know the size to read off the socket and where to send it without any more
> XML parsing.  Binary data could also be done the same way using a namespace
> of say "jabber2:binary".
> To allow compatibility with people who want to use telnet, the first message
> would be optional (though the vast majority of clients would support it
> through libraries or whatever, so we would get the speed boost 99.9% of the
> time)  Yes, the server would have to fully parse those telnet messages, but
> its going to have to to allow telnet under any scenario.
> This seems (to uneducated me), that it gets the benefit of the packet
> framing while still allowing a completely xml environment.  Yes, the first
> route can be looked at as redundant, but its still less or equal to the
> envelope stuff.
> pobst
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig

     /\  Adam Theo, Age 23, Tallahassee FL USA
    //\\   Email & Jabber: theo at theoretic.com
   //  \\  Pager: (850) 709 7738
//  ||  \\  Theoretic Solutions: http://www.theoretic.com
     ||         "Building Ideas by Bringing them Together"
     ||      Jabber Protocol: http://www.jabber.org
     ||         "The Next Generation Communications Protocol"
     ||  "A Free-Market Socialist Patriotic American Buddhist"

More information about the Standards mailing list