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

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Sun Apr 30 13:35:10 UTC 2006

Hi Mridul,

> 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 
limit it.

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.

- Ian

More information about the Standards mailing list