[standards-jig] JEP-0067

Peter Ronez prnz404 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 26 02:33:55 UTC 2003


--- Nick <nick at jabberstudio.org> wrote:
> That is fine you have such an in depth view of how equities work and 
> are willing to give _constructive_ criticism on the jep. But instead of 
> telling someone that it cannot be done or not to waste their time, why 
> not help or support him in achieving his goals?

Actually Nick, I don't know that much about equities, and thank you for
commenting on something that you have no clue about.

I explained to Ulrich some of the crucial data that is missing in his JEP in
order effectively use the stock data. Aside from what I mentioned, there is a
lot of other details that I'm not intimately familiar with either. 

Additionally, I don't see how it's my burden to improve the JEP just because
I've commented on it. Did I ask for the JEP to be improved?

My largest objection to the JEP is that it's not Jabber.org job's to
standardize on XML formats for data not even remotely related to instant
messaging. There are plenty of other standards bodies with domain specific
knowledge that are coming up with representations for the data. So aside from
the technical problems with multicasting financial data over XMPP, it's still
not a good idea for Jabber.org to produce its own data format for everything
under the sun.

>
> There is no multicasting? I beg to differ. The protocol is merely the 
> transport. Ultimately it is up to the layer above the transport layer 
> how to move that data. So what do you do? You write a multicaster. NOT 
> ROCKET SCIENCE. 
> Right now , Peter, you sound like you are astro turfing XMPP as a 
> transport layer for some other "professional" software, rather than 
> providing strong standards-jig style argument or support for this jep.
> -- 


"Although XMPP is not wedded to any specific network architecture, to this
point it usually has been implemented via a typical client-server architecture,
wherein a client utilizing XMPP accesses a server over a TCP[4] socket."
 -- Section 2 "Generalized Architecture" in xmpp-core

Nick, I highly recommend that you pick up a copy of Unix Network Programming by
Stevens and read-up on multicasting. Since TCP does *not* support
multicast/broadcast and XMPP requires TCP/IP, XMPP over multicast would be a
shocker. The reason why products like RV don't use TCP/IP (unicast) is b/c the
connections are extremely expensive. 

BTW Nick, I think my comments are constructive. Just b/c my comments aren't
focused on ways to improve the JEP, doesn't mean they're not useful. I pretty
sure that had I not said anything about this JEP it was going to just die off
eventually when it comes to a vote b/c most Jabber developers don't see a need
for it's inclusion. So yeah, I talked about the short comings of JEP, but I
also explained why the principal of transport financial data over XMPP is not a
good idea. Next time I'll be sure to sugarcoat it so that my astro-turfing goes
unnoticed.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com



More information about the Standards mailing list