[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-0124: comments on proposed version 1.5

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Sun Apr 30 12:46:33 UTC 2006


Hi Vinod,

> The reason I think it should be in a separate JEP is because some
> entities would want to just use the multi-stream feature - an xmpp
> proxy, for instance.
[snip]
> Makes perfect sense when deploying servers to cater to huge loads.  A
> proxy would handle incoming connections (Connection Manager, if you
> wish) and will route them to back end xmpp servers, optimising usage
> of a few tcp connections, sending multiple streams over each of them.

I expect that proxies will in almost all cases employ standard 5222 TCP 
connections with the servers. But perhaps I'm missing something? IMO 
JEP-0124 will probably never be used for server-to-server communications. 
However, I certainly don't want to close down unnecessarily that (or any 
other) possibility.

The primary motivation for adding optional multi-streams was to allow a 
single constrained (Web) client to open several streams with a proxy 
(something that v1.4 of the JEP made impossible). For example, on weekdays a 
user might want their client to be logged in simultaneously via a proxy with 
these bare JIDs:
vinod at work.com
vinod at personal.com

At least one implementation of client/proxy multi-streams is already in 
development.

- Ian




More information about the Standards mailing list