[Standards] file transfer
stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Aug 28 19:54:43 UTC 2007
Richard Dobson wrote:
>> No, it would work the other way around -- it enables you to re-use your
>> existing SOCK5 and IBB code, but for the negotiation you'd use Jingle
>> instead of SI.
> Ah I see, I thought so, I was suggesting doing things the other way
> around which would be far more backwards compatible as you wouldnt need
> to implement two separate ways of initiating file transfers which allows
> you to reuse not just the SOCKS5 and IBB code but also the SI and file
> transfer initiation code and you are just adding an extra stream-method
> which makes things much simpler, certainly for me it would make
> implementing it 100x simpler as my SI/file transfer code is all
> abstracted out and all I would need to do was implement a jingle
> bytestream stream-method, not redo all the file transfer discovery,
> offering, acceptance etc etc which makes things very much more complicated.
I understand. But SI and Jingle essentially perform the same functions,
since they both enable negotiation.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards