[standards-jig] What to do about PubSub

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Sep 18 18:55:05 UTC 2002

> >> Second, if the pubsub differences are significant enough that it requires
> >> separate specs, can we really reuse that many components? I'm wondering if
> >> it wouldn't be better to identify the major pubsub "camps", and then
> >> generate a full set of pubsub docs for each camp. If the approaches are
> > 
> > This in my mind just a formalisation of what's been happening to pubsub
> > already. And look where that's got us :-)
> :) Well, I think there is one important difference. Right now, everyone is
> trying to get one pubsub designed to meet everyone's needs. The flipside
> being, people see the pubsub being developed as being the only option and so
> feel obligated to fight to get this or that particular feature in it.
> If we formalize the fact that there are multiple pubsub protocols, people
> will hopefully chose the one that most closely meets their needs (or will
> spawn a new pubsub alternative) and each particular pubsub protocol will
> move forward.  Of course this is a theory... :)

I think what DJ is saying is that if we create a number of modular spec
out of a number of protocol pieces ("pubsub primitives"), then people with
different needs can mix and match the pieces in order to create the kinds
of solutions they need. Or at least that is the theory... :)


More information about the Standards mailing list