justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
Tue Feb 24 22:36:47 UTC 2004
On Tuesday 24 February 2004 1:44 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > I think that if JEP-25 is going to be replaced, we need to establish why
> > it should be replaced. Judging by the discussion so far, it seems that
> > the rationale for JEP-124 is to provide an easier way for the second
> > group to implement XMPP over HTTP, not that there is any particular
> > deficiency in JEP-25. This is not a good enough reason to replace the
> > JEP, in my opinion, especially if all it would do is reverse the
> > situation (second group happy, first group not happy).
> JEP-0025 has known deficiencies in the kinds of clients it can support.
> Plus that weirdness with the HTTP body has always bothered me. But I was
> mostly the scribe on JEP-0124, so others can probably explain things
> more fully.
Well, JEP-25 requires you to maintain the full xmpp-core state (xml parser,
security layers, etc), just as if you were doing a plain TCP based
connection. There are probably some instances where this is not practical to
do, such as two websites communicating with each other in a stateless way (as
BartVB discussed some time ago), and possibly some other cases.
However, I don't expect JEP-124 to be popular among normal end-user IM
clients. JEP-124 is drastically different from xmpp-core, not end-to-end
secure, and the only benefit it provides (which is the ability to work
statelessly) is of no concern to these projects.
I'm not against JEP-124, and I'm aware of its usefulness. Just remove the
"Supercedes: JEP-25" text from JEP-124 and we'll all be happy.
More information about the Standards