[standards-jig] JEP-0017

Iain Shigeoka iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 20 16:49:03 UTC 2002

On 2/19/02 11:13 AM, "Mike Lin" <mikelin at MIT.EDU> wrote:

> Firstly, I would like to say that I am very satisfied and very grateful
> with how the discussion over JEP-0017 has evolved. Some serious problems
> that I hadn't thought of were pointed out, and I like to think that it
> has started the intellectual ball rolling on framing in JNG, which was
> definitely a goal from the start.

I heartily agree.  In addition the JEP process has worked rather well in
this case with a submission, discussion, revisions, discussion, and now a
move to move to the next JEP stage.  Most JEPs seem to stall out.

> That stated, I still believe JEP-0017 framing will be useful in the near
> term (within the next year) since it is unlikely that JNG will be
> substantially deployed within that time period.

I agree.

> In the face of the misframe propagation problem that was pointed out by
> David Waite, Diz, and others, I'll withdraw all predictions of how the
> framing will "obviously" improve performance. However, I can confidently
> predict that it can perform at least as well as can be done currently.
> The code simplicity reason why JEP-0017 adds "real value" that I've been
> referring to time and again is quite subtle and is most clear if you
> have the experience of having actually implemented a Jabber XML stream
> processor. In the worst case, the framing data makes no difference to
> the stream processor; in the best case, it makes the processor's task
> vastly simpler and less error-prone (depending on variables like the XML
> parsing suite used, asynchronous I/O capabilities of the system,
> willingess to reimplement portions of processor code, and so on).

I agree with reservations.  I'm curious to know how many people actually
write their own XML processors (and thus would benefit).  Users of generic
XML parsers would probably be reluctant to modify the parser to gain
benefits...  However, in the case where you are willing to go through the
trouble, it definitely seems like it would help significantly.

> In the end, I would like to see JEP-0017 or some derivative thereof as
> an active informational JEP so that the option is at least legitimately
> available to new implementations. I think this is a case where the line
> between informational and standards is somewhat blurred.
> I've updated JEP-0017 to reflect this new thinking. I hope we can build
> a test implementation and move JEP-0017 to draft stage in the near
> future.

+1  You have my vote.


Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

More information about the Standards mailing list