[Standards] file transfer
stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Aug 28 21:26:58 UTC 2007
I sense some confusion...
Robin Redeker wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 09:21:43PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> 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?
It's unclear exactly what you mean. You want a Jingle method as one
option in stream initiation, like this?
<iq type='set' id='offer1' to='receiver at jabber.org/resource'>
<x xmlns='jabber:x:data' type='form'>
<field var='stream-method' type='list-single'>
And then you do a Jingle negotiation to figure out how to proceed?
> 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.
See earlier list discussion. We had rough consensus that in the long
term client developers didn't want both SI and Jingle as negotiation
mechanisms -- that it would be easier to have just one approach.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards