Fwd: [Standards-JIG] Re: WHACK
Michal vorner Vaner
michal.vaner at kdemail.net
Sun Apr 30 18:05:08 UTC 2006
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 01:32:16PM +0100, Matthew Wild wrote:
> All this adds great complexity, compared to easy-to-implement,
> bandwidth-saving whacks.
Well, I see WHACKs harder to implement than anything stanza-related. For
the application, it is XML. As XML, it parses the < and > things. The
parser should NOT care about any whitespace between the stanzas. Many
parsers will jist ignore them. So what now? Get between the connection
and parser to see if WHACK is coming? Replace the parser and rewrite the
thing from the core? Not have the reliable delivery?
> I also think that methods of 'quick reconnection'
> should be covered elsewhere, not by the implementation of acks themselves.
They should not be covered at all. If the connection is lost, <message>
stanzas are stored offline and you can reconect whenever you want.
Almost no complexity.
> There is also no question in my mind that acks should be hop-hop, not
> end-to-end. Makeshift methods of end-to-end acks exist already, and from
> my experience it doubles the lag aleady present in sending messages.
> Hop-to-hop acks make far more sense.
NAT should extinkt like dinosaurs did.
Michal "vorner" Vaner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards