[standards-jig] JNG Ramblings.
iain.shigeoka at messaginglogic.com
Thu Aug 15 02:42:05 UTC 2002
On 8/14/02 4:28 PM, "Robert Norris" <rob at cataclysm.cx> wrote:
>> I find it interesting that no one has been championing Jabber as it is (all
>> XML) plus much more extensive use of HTTP (WebDav maybe?) as the out of band
>> channel to handle everything else.
> FYI, I'm currently documenting an implementation of Apache, mod_dav,
> mod_auth_jabber and iq:oob to do file transfers. I don't see a reason
> why HTTP can't be used for all types of binary data - that's kinda what
> its for.
Cool. I look forward to seeing it. It may not be as technically elegant as
a "roll your own" JNG but reusing existing infrastructure does have
significant advantages. I'm especially thinking about such a combination of
existing tools as a transition protocol if we do propose a JNG.
> However, I'm still fence-sitting on this thread - just thought I'd bring
> it to your attention :)
Thanks. The part of the thread that has really got me thinking is the
question of "what is Jabber?" If you look at it from a certain mindset,
moving Jabber to BEEP would be APEX whether it is exactly APEX or not. And
similarly for other transports like JXTA. On the other hand, if Jabber is
the user/developer community or an interoperable messaging system based on
XML messages, then there can be no loss no matter how we move the protocol.
Jer's statement seems to fall more in the latter camp and my general feeling
is about the same. However, I can see the other point of view as well...
More information about the Standards