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

Jay Carlson nop at mitre.org
Thu May 18 03:22:04 UTC 2006

Pedro Melo writes: 

> On May 18, 2006, at 1:18 AM, Chris Mullins wrote:
> > Pedro Melo <melo at co.sapo.pt> Wrote:
> >> Recent JEPs are getting more and more
> >> integrated or tightly coupled with the server.
> >
> > As a server implementer, I would tend to agree with you.
> >
> > I've implemented a lot of JEPs in our server, and by far most of them
> > were easier to implement directly into the server.
> >
> > Some of the JEPs have been implemented as external components (MUC,
> > PubSub, Administration, and a few others), but by far the majority are
> > internal.
> I would bet that implementing the latest pubsub spec as an external
> component is no longer possible. I would hope to be wrong, though.
> The roster access model in the latest revisions comes to mind as a
> problem :).


> It just that I liked the old way of building external components that
> could be used on several servers :).

If I'm understanding this correctly, it's no longer sufficient to let a
contract for an RFC 392x compliant server and then count on licensing
best-of-breed components from third parties.  It may not even be possible.

That's a pretty significant economic shift in power towards people who have
vertically integrated server stacks.  Or maybe it's just an acknowledgement
that RFC 392x is no longer considered relevant to real-world deployments.

In either case, as someone who *had* no interest in controlling a server
implementation, I find this troubling.
"I was unaware irony had military utility."

More information about the Standards mailing list