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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu May 18 15:48:58 UTC 2006


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Pedro Melo wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On May 18, 2006, at 5:29 AM, Justin Karneges wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Of course not, but some JEPs require access to information inside the
> JSM, and for that we don't have standard protocols.

Basically you're talking about access to the roster. But RFC 3921
already requires that. I don't hear anyone complaining about the fact
that you can't put roster handling into an external component.

>> 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.
> 
> Of course it can, but the problem is that there are no standard ways to
> access certain information from an external component, like your roster.
> And without those standards there is no possibility of developing a
> market for external components.

So we can work on those standards, no?

> The only market right now, is for vertical integrated servers.
> 
>> It might be nice to have a powerful, standardized component protocol,
>> but this
>> 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
>> operates.
> 
> Yeah, but if I like a specific apache module, and I use IIS and I'm
> happy with it, wouldn't it be nice if I could just do it? In the XMPP
> world it was supposed to work that way. Thats what JEP-0114 was meant to
> be, right?
> 
> Only what happened is that in the last months, the natural evolution
> (and bare in mind that I do think the evolution was a good one) of the
> more important JEPs left the idea of implementing them as external
> components behind.

That is not true of MUC. That is partially true of pubsub for some
(again) OPTIONAL features.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEbJdqNF1RSzyt3NURAgIJAKC8idYjoVfTSn8FL5QWjzOUp1P+GgCgxtPD
PIyytTNZIltzXGlLt6Yxyfo=
=oC3V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060518/b8bbc74d/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list