[Standards-JIG] Re: CALL FOR FEEDBACK: JEP-0060

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed May 24 16:07:46 UTC 2006


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

All I did was state a simple fact: totally refactoring the spec will
take a lot of time. My time is not infinte.

I will reply separately to Heiner.

Jean-Louis Seguineau wrote:
> Why duck Heiner? You are just stating a fact. There is nothing wrong with
> that. And doing so does not decrease the quality of the work and effort put
> into writing this JEP, on the contrary.
> 
> I support your suggestion for a different presentation of this great
> milestone. We have everything to gain in making it easier to apply. And it
> is simple to make it easier by splitting the JEP in more "digestible"
> chunks. This is just a way to make it "better".
> 
> +1
> 
> Jean-Louis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:16:43 +0200
> From: Heiner Wolf <wolf at bluehands.de>
> Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] Re: CALL FOR FEEDBACK: JEP-0060
> To: Jabber protocol discussion list <standards-jig at jabber.org>
> Message-ID: <4474247B.1070504 at bluehands.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> One week gone and no feedback so far. You have 17 more days. :-)
> 
> OK, here is a serious one:
> I know I am about to get in hot water, but I think the JEP is too fat. 
> It printed 100 pages with small fonts.
> 
> I understand, that most of the complexity will be implemented by 
> servers, but I doubt, that the client part is simple (remember: jabber 
> clients should be simple?).
> 
> I am also a fan of simple specs for the server part. Servers usually 
> tend to have lots of code, but this is because they have to cope with 
> the real world and evil clients. Not, because they implement complex 
> services.
> 
> This is not the time to go into details. I am saying that a pubsub 
> specification on top of an XML based protocol could be simpler, smaller, 
> easier. It should be.
> 
> I know JEP-0060 went a long way and there are already big investments in 
> documentation, code and know how. Despite all this, I propose to make a 
> new document and extract only the essentials.
> 
> It might be possible to separate the document into a pubsub core and 
> extensions. The core should have a simple pub/sub mechanism. Collection 
> Nodes, should be a separate JEP. I am sorry for the blog/news-oriented 
> people, but I'd scrap items for pubsub-core and store data in nodes 
> only. Items could be an extension with the node returning the 
> first/default item. Maybe implementation notes could be split off. They 
> are important, but they make the spec heavy and people judge specs by 
> the page count. Remember SIP and SIMPLE? And yes, I know that 1/2 of the 
> spec is XML, examples and schema. I think it is still too much for a 
> pubsub-core document.
> 
> I don't think, that it is a good way to finish now "what we already 
> have" and then add simplifications as separate JEPs. It would be better 
> to restart simple and then draw the code for extensions from JEP-0060.
> 
> (Now I duck and wait for the flames)
> 
> hw
> --
> Dr. Heiner Wolf
> bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
> http://www.bluehands.de/people/hw
> +49 (0721) 16108 75
> 
> 


- --
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

iD8DBQFEdITRNF1RSzyt3NURAmccAKCp5M8FYnQILxX22xws9znCKnYmyQCgo2gr
UNVX3/Jaqjt13KqVn3nWPMM=
=uILL
-----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/20060524/a88b2781/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list