[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-0124: comments on proposed version 1.5
ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Sun Apr 30 13:35:10 UTC 2006
> 1) The value of '9007199254740991' for max value of rid : how was this
> arrived at ? On what criterion ?
Check out note 17 from the JEP:
"9007199254740991 is 2^53-1. Some weakly typed languages use IEEE Standard
754 Doubles to represent all numbers. These Doubles cannot represent
integers above 2^53 accurately."
> 2) Why are you allowing arbitrary xml stanza's to be sent through
> connection manager ?
Why not? :-)
JEP-0124 defines a pipe through which XMPP may flow. Like TCP, JEP-0124 is
not XMPP (perhaps it will be an RFC one day). It is up to the XMPP server
and client to verify that the XML they receive through the JEP-0124 pipe is
valid XMPP (in the same way they already do for standard 5222 TCP
That said, nothing in the JEP prevents a specific implementation limiting
itself to XMPP.
> I am not sure why we are envisioning jep124 http binding connection
> manager as a generic xml stream gateway - if specific implementations want
> to treat it that way, it is fine.
Yes the JEP simply makes sure implementations can treat it that way. As
commited as we are to XMPP, it is probable that other streaming XML
streaming protocols will be developed in the future that could benefit from
all the existing JEP-0124 proxy implementations that were originally
developed for use with XMPP.
The origin of the polling-free technology now documented in JEP-0124 was a
proprietary AJAX technology (not just for XMPP). I never intended the
technology to be limited to XMPP - and have not yet heard a good reason to
If the developers of a specific implementation want to prevent its use for
anything other than XMPP then that is fine. However, IMHO an organisation
commited to openness and extensibility should not encourage that without
very good reasons.
More information about the Standards