[standards-jig] Server-side packet routing

Iain Shigeoka iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Fri Mar 15 03:22:29 UTC 2002


On 3/14/02 3:17 PM, "Julian Missig" <julian at jabber.org> wrote:

> You make a very good point, and I definitely think it's worth
> considering -- especially when some of these changes are very simple
> things. (It's more difficult to justify the ones which would take a lot
> of time and effort, but even then how will we know if it really works
> until we implement with JNG?)
> 
> Julian
> 
> On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 01:54, Mike Lin wrote:
>> 
>> It's my opinion that in order to solve these problems we will need to
>> have "boots on the ground" so to speak - implement various solutions and
>> see what works and what doesn't, because no one knows by a priori
>> inspection.
>> 
>> -Mike

I agree with both of you.  The real big thing though was that JNG is allowed
to completely break compatibility with old Jabber.  This is something that
will be a crucial factor (it came up for example in the recent packet
framing discussions).  This will/may make it difficult to exploit existing
Jabber software...or better put, we shouldn't limit ourselves by what will
be hard to make work within existing things like jabberd.  OTOH, we should
also be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater:

> In relation to my work in defining a better generic "xml stream" transport
> layer via xatp.org, I'd like to see what it means to define Jabber as
> purely a set of namespaces and rules that can be run on various
> transports.  I'm also looking forward to some simple pub/sub for the
> current generation as well as being a foundation for JNG.
> 
> Jer

Yes.  I like a lot of the messages being passed over Jabber which is pretty
much what xatp.org is talking about.  Just maybe not the current platform
they're being passed through.

-iain


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




More information about the Standards mailing list