[Standards-JIG] Jabber external components: going out of style

Pedro Melo melo at co.sapo.pt
Wed May 17 22:49:17 UTC 2006


Hi,

a small topic detour...

On May 17, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Richard Dobson wrote:
>> wouldn't xmpp:capulet/%s4134edd be a nicer encoding for instance?
>> you could even transfer it in a non-xmpp medium.
>
> no thats horrible and means the multicasting component is  
> completely tied into the jabber server and cannot be separated, in  
> jabber we usually try to use a distributed architecture, we  
> certainly dont tie specs down to prevent them from being able to be.

First, I agree with you. I don't like the xmpp: addresses.

But your argument is wrong. Recent JEPs are getting more and more  
integrated or tightly coupled with the server. One example: PEP. Its  
the current favorite for a lot of problems, and it's my favorite two.  
But an external component implementation is out of the question.

XMPP used to do a lot of things in a way that they could be  
implemented in an external component, so that if you had a great MUC  
implementation you could just reuse it on several servers.

Not anymore. To write a PEP component, I need to have access to the  
roster information (there is not standard protocol to do that), and I  
need to redirect to-server traffic to an external component (also no  
standard for that).

So yes and no: in jabber we usually tried to use a distributed  
architecture, but not any more.

Best regards,
--
HIId: Pedro Melo
SMTP: melo at co.sapo.pt
XMPP: pedro.melo at sapo.pt




More information about the Standards mailing list