[standards-jig] [jepnews] JEP-0020: Client Feature Negotiation

Iain Shigeoka iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 4 19:15:36 UTC 2002


On 3/4/02 10:17 AM, "DJ Adams" <dj.adams at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 09:30:17AM -0800, Iain Shigeoka wrote:
>>> 
>>> Have you ever looked at UDDI? You are aware one of Jabber's goals is
>>> simplicity, right? Again, I ask if you've ever looked at UDDI :)
>> 
>> :)  Yup.  But I'm thinking that there are a lot of existing libraries for
>> UDDI... So it may be complex if you're writing everything from scratch, but
>> simple if you use existing tools.  The same complexity argument could be
> 
> I read Julian's point not as one against how complex it is to program,
> rather how complex it becomes to understand from a human readable POV.

Aren't they one and the same (programmability and readability)?  If you
aren't a programmer should you really be trying to read the raw XML?  I am
kind of working under the assumption that at some point, as we get into more
complex protocols that require more complex data, we're going to have to
start using tools in order to understand the data...

> Indeed, this point is being made of XQuery in the jabber:iq:rdbm thread
> in this same list.

Yes.

>> If Jabber uses UDDI, we can very easily plug into existing UDDI directories,
>> access web services via SOAP, etc, etc.  If we have our own Jabber lookup,
>> Jabber negotiation protocols, Jabber database access, etc we will continue
>> to exclude ourselves from the vibrant XML community out there.
> 
> You make some valid points, but as someone's eventually going to point
> out (and I know this isn't _specifically_ about UDDI), UDDI is not yet
> an open standard, AFAIK.
> 
> ;-)

:)

-iain


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




More information about the Standards mailing list