[standards-jig] Serious Issues with JEP 0024

Julian Missig julian at jabber.org
Thu Jul 11 03:57:12 UTC 2002


On Wed, 2002-07-10 at 22:27, Adam Theo wrote:
> DJ Adams wrote:
*SNIP*
>  >>Do all publishings need to be in an IQ packet? I am helping to design a
>  >>new conferencing protocol for Jabber, to replace GroupChat and pick up
>  >>where JCF left off. A generic pub/sub would be a great tool to use, but
>  >>only if it can send out <message> tags instead of <iq> tags containing
>  >>the published data. It doesn't make sense to have humans talking and
>  >>chatting through IQ packets.
>  >
>  > Nor does it make sense to assume that the only traffic that can be 
> carried
>  > in IQ payloads is non-human talk data. While the point is debatable (and
>  > has been debated more than once) it becomes moot eventually. IMHO the IQ
>  > model aligns itself with pubsub more than the message model does.
> 
> Well, this issue I'm still pretty concerned about. I don't think the
> issue becomes moot eventually simply because there is existing
> infrastructure that makes heavy, and proper, use of the <message>
> packets. Without support for <message>, you cannot publish email-like
> newsletters that look and work just like normal messages nor can you
> publish/broadcast headlines via the old <message type="headline"> tag.
> Everything is done in IQ from this point on, except direct one-to-one
> communications between humans.
> 
> I'm not asking to support <message> instead of <iq>, but support *both*.
> Possibly by by specifying what type of element (iq or message) to use as
> well as type of message/iq (normal, chat, headline...).
> 
> Now, I feel the ultimate solution to this problem would be what was
> started with JNG, where there was only one top level element <route
> to="" from="" xmlns=""> that carried any XML data to the intended
> destination. No <message>, no <iq>, just different namespaces covering
> custom XML. But we are not in JNG yet, so I guess we have to make
> solutions for the here and now.
*SNIP*

I'll have to pipe in here and say I agree with theo. I would definitely
like to see a way for pub/sub to work with <message> *and* <iq>. I
really don't know the details on the server level, but it definitely
seems nasty to me to be adding the routing (pub/sub) data within the
message, but I don't think we have a better choice right now, do we? I
don't know. I know I'd like to see <message> supported, but I also
recognize how nasty it is to have routing data hidden down that deep in
the message... servers shouldn't have to dig in to route :(

Julian
-- 
email: julian at jabber.org
jabber:julian at jabber.org




More information about the Standards mailing list