[Standards] NEW: XEP-0225 (Component Connections)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Aug 10 03:03:16 UTC 2007


Hi Matthias! :)

Matthias Wimmer wrote:
> Hi Peter!
> 
> Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
>> I don't have a strong preference really. A component feels a bit more
>> like a client because it is a local connection, plus c2s connections are
>> simpler than s2s connections. Let's pick one and be done with it. :)
> 
> 
> The reason why I for the most part suggest using jabber:server instead
> of jabber:client is, that in the jabber:client namespace the from
> attribute on stanza is optional, while on jabber:server it is not. I
> think this is one of the biggest differences between these two
> namespaces. 

In fact I think it's the only difference. ;-)

> So the component connection which also forces this stanza
> attribute to be present matches better the jabber:server namespace.

True.

> Minor reasons:
> - I'd say that component connections are more like a s2s connection, as
> you do not manage sessions from them in the server. 

Good point. But I suppose that a session is tied to resource binding and
sending initial presence (we're getting rid of session establishment in
rfc3921bis for this reason -- a session is essentially a presence
session), so I don't know if this reason is relevant.

> - Both with s2s and components you typically route one or more domains
> completely to the same desination. With c2s you only route single users
> out of a domain.

Right.

As I said, I think there are reasons to go with either jabber:client or
jabber:server. It may more more a matter of picking one than choosing
based on some reasoning.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7354 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070809/f9a1c884/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list