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

Jean-Louis Seguineau jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Thu May 18 07:52:15 UTC 2006

Well summarized Justin.

Having designed and built an entirely componentized server, I can vouch
there is nothing difficult in doing so. It is just, in my opinion, that most
people are more comfortable visualizing an XMPP server as 'monolithic'. It
may also be the simpler approach when experimenting with server code. The
good old 'distributed' or 'hub and spoke' models are two different view
points and dictate very different implementations... Each model serves
different needs, and people may happily live with either approach.

The discussion would be better left for another thread.


-----Original Message-----
Justin Karneges justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com 
Wed May 17 23:29:27 CDT 2006 

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

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

On Wednesday 17 May 2006 20:22, Jay Carlson wrote:
> > 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.

Sure it is.  The RFCs don't fully dictate your server's internal design.

Just because some servers might be more monolithic with regards to domain 
handling doesn't mean that another server can't come along tomorrow that is 
better componentized.

It might be nice to have a powerful, standardized component protocol, but
is a hard problem, and not really relevant to the edge protocols.  For what 
it's worth, Apache modules don't work in Microsoft IIS and the world still 


More information about the Standards mailing list