[standards-jig] IBB: Making it all "go"
rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Thu Apr 10 18:28:40 UTC 2003
Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
>> If fixing the behavior of the message stanzas is the right path to
>> take, then doesn't it make more sense to make this JEP push it forward
>> rather than push it aside? Make it use <message/>;
> Yes! Let's give our customers and users a protocol we know is flawed
> when we have a better alternative. Then (after their clients are
> flooded and their server swapfile has grown to 100 gigabyte) when they
> ask us: "Why did you do this?", we'll answer: "It's so you'll upgrade
> next year!". Admitted, this is a buisness strategy for some companies
> but I'd rather not ;)
Okay, I put that part badly, I grant you. :) Dizzy put it better, while
getting at what I was pointing at:
Dave Smith wrote:
> With all due respect, I would reiterate that this isn't just about the
> "name" of the stanza/packet. There IS a problem with <message> -- we
> can't use it as it was originally meant to be used. This means there is a
> bug in the protocol that should be fixed. Making the right choices for
> protocol clarity and uniformity is a critical part of the JSF's function.
> If we are serious about wanting to build a long-lived protocol we MUST be
> concerned with making changes that match the original intent and goals of
> the protocol.
I think it's better that if this will be pushed forward and standardized
officially, it should be pushed forward and standardized in the /proper/
form. Making an official IQ-based IBB will only encourage client authors
in the future when it's deferred to add the IQ one as they run down the
list of JEPs. (Don't believe me? How many clients still implement
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 3. Implement IBB with IQ in some clients and see how it works
> Not everything in Jabber needs to go through the JEP process, and in
> this instance it might be valuable to pursue #3 and gain some
> experience with IBB before seeking ratification of the protocol.
This seems like the ideal route to me. For those (Tijl) who need it
immediately, they can come up with an IBB using IQ, and implement it.
Others who need it for some problem can implement it and experiment with
it. Maybe IQ turns out to work well, or maybe the every-packet-ack does
end up being excessive. Either way, there's no active-status JEP to
mislead a new client author into blindly implementing that JEP when it
might not be the final Jabber 1.0 route.
It'd be nice to gain some experience and have that information come back to
the standards list, since either way it would be useful to have return to
Wow; I'm running out of pennies. :)
Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com>
Trillian Messenger - http://www.trillian.cc/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards