[standards-jig] No Subject....

Dave Smith dizzyd at jabber.org
Tue Feb 5 00:37:38 UTC 2002


On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 04:49:03PM -0500, Mike Lin wrote:
> > Yes.  Hence, I have moved the discussion of JNG to another thread.  With
> > regard to JEP 0017, I think our original discussion still stands: there are
> > difficult problems here and it may just not be worth addressing without a
> > willingness to consider alternatives to Jabber's "pure XML" approach...
> > Will a stopgap XML framing effort pay off and be adopted?
> 
> There are real benefits to new implementations (such as Jabber.NET and
> Jabber for embedded devices) from having JEP-0017-style framing
> information available, since it makes XML Stream interpretation much
> easier.

I concur that there could be speed benefits, but (as Dave Waite has
noted), there are significant issues with malformed XML compromising the
system at a level other than jpoll/c2s component. In other words, by
doing this framing you provide the ability for malformed XML to make it
farther into the routing system and could cause jabberd to drop a
connection to components (due to the bad XML), as opposed to having the
c2s/jpoll drop the client connection. This would be very bad, and IMHO,
sufficient reason to not pursue this further -- unless you want to also
address the component protocol to deal with malformed XML on trusted
connections in such a way that those trusted connections don't have to
reset on every bad packet.

I am _all_ for a new transport layer to move XML -- I think there are
significant benefits to be realized. However, I do not believe that
inlining framing information in the existing protocol is the way to go.

IMHO, of course.

Diz



More information about the Standards mailing list