[Standards] file transfer

Robin Redeker elmex at x-paste.de
Tue Aug 28 20:44:24 UTC 2007


On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 09:21:43PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
[.snip.]
> >I understand. But SI and Jingle essentially perform the same functions,
> >since they both enable negotiation.
> 
> Yes but jingle also provides access to ICE and pseudo-tcp so it would be 
> helpful rather than have the entire file transfer negotiation using just 
> jingle if it was separated in two so that all the jingle side is doing 
> is negotiating a generic bytestream that can be then reused by things 
> like SI, to me this seems like a sensible compromise as there is no real 
> benefit that I can see of doing the whole thing in jingle as its just 
> duplicating effort, whereas creating a new bytestream method is 
> complimentory, anyone else think its a good idea?

I generally thought that reimplementing all that with jingle is a bad
idea. And I as client/library author surely don't like the idea of
duplicating code or functinality.

I agree completly with you.


Robin



More information about the Standards mailing list