[standards-jig] JEPs and Jabber Adoption
thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Sun Jun 29 14:54:31 UTC 2003
Nathan Walp <faceprint at think.faceprint.com> wrote on 29-6-2003 16:25:10:
>I'm not even gonna quote a specific reply here, it's been said about
>twelve times, so just imagine I'm replying to someone who is comparing
>JEPs to the linux kernel ;-)
>If I implement a new VM for the kernel (for example), and it SUCKS, has
>some horribly major flaw, the WORST that it can do is hurt the machine
>that is running it. That is all.
>If I write a new JEP, it goes to Draft, gets implemented, and a huge
>flaw is discovered, the WORST it can do is hurt the entire XMPP/Jabber
>community, because now that implementation is in the wild.
Why would *any* of the client authors do such a thing? Are they people
outthere that want to hurt Jabber that badly? What are you saying
anyway? That we don't implement anything cause we might risk "hurting
the entire community"?
I'm getting tired of these "don't implement anything cause we'll end up
in interoperatability hell" arguments cause there is nothing to back
them up! And that's *still* besides the point, cause time and time
again I've made this point clear: JEPs are being blocked because of
competing ideas, because there are different solutions to the same
problem the entire process becomes *stuck*. Nowhere, and I do mean
nowhere, did I suggest we advance JEPs to DRAFT that have horrible
flaws in them.
>Does everyone see the difference? The spaghetti-wall method of working
>(keep throwing stuff against the wall until something sticks) just
>can't work for Jabber, because we all have to live with whatever
>decisions are made for a long time.
And this is simply not true. Just because a JEP is DRAFT does not, not
at all even, mean that any of you have to work with it unless you like
the what the JEP is trying to do. The whole point of an implementation
of this idea (just like with linux) is that you can see the idea be put
in to practise. Then you have at least a solid base to critisize it if
you think your idea is so much better.
People here are suggesting it's impossible to write a good JEP, take
the flaws out, and keep it stable and backwards compatible if any
updates were to be released, unless 100% of the community and council
is 100% happy with the idea before it's ever used. What drives you to
say that? Are people convinced that an idea MUST be bad just because
they don't like it at first sight?
No JEPs that have horrible technical flaws in them will go to DRAFT,
nor any JEPs that claim to do something they do not. I'm not suggesting
the community should go stupid. I'm suggesting we advance JEPs that are
technically ok, with all the flaws worked out by all who want to
contribute to it, and that do what they say (solve the problem they are
trying to tackle). We're surthenly not doing that now. But honestly,
that doesn't sound like such a strange idea to me. But when I hear you
people talking it sounds like all hell will break loose if we'd start
doing that. :)
>Linus et. all could care less about the VM in the
>2.0 series of kernels.
Well, I can't argue with that..
Software Engineer @ Splendo
More information about the Standards