[standards-jig] JNG Ramblings.

Wing, Oliver owing at vianetworks.com
Tue Aug 13 08:23:47 UTC 2002


Iain,

> PS - partly unrelated, but if we're going binary, I wonder if it wouldn't
be
> prudent to integrate addressing into the headers.  Perhaps some address
> dictionary so that you could establish a per session mapping of routing ID
> numbers to particular Jabber nodes/resources.  That way routing and
> processing are completely separate activities and the router doesn't have
to
> understand XML.

Yes it would be nice to have addressing and packet types, which would make
routing more efficent. However, I see a couple of issues

a) The XML still has to be passed at some point. You're simply moving where
the processing takes place. As hildj has pointed out, scalability is already
there and proven. (Some of the links recently posted to JDEV on SameTime and
Exchange discuss performance of those products)

b) If you're putting addressing and/or packet types into the binary
protocol, you must take it out of the XML protocol. If you have to leave it
in there, checking for discrepencies should be done as early in the chain as
possible. This defeats the 'router doesn't have to understand XML' gain.

c) The more binary information you add in, the further you move away from
what Jabber is (not 'has been'). I see this thread turning from how to
improve XMPP into a discussion for a completely new protocol (which by no
means is necessarily a bad thing).


Regards,

--
Oliver Wing




More information about the Standards mailing list