[Standards] Simple Jingle example(s) and spec(s) wanted

Rachel Blackman rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Mon Feb 5 23:56:10 UTC 2007


On Feb 5, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Hmm. It's always nice to think that there is one true path, but in  
> the end perhaps the flexible transport + media approach in Jingle  
> will solve more problems for us. As long as it doesn't *create*  
> more problems. :-)

Not to pick nits here, but I think having two completely different  
file transfer systems is going to create enough problems as it is. ;)

As it is, XMPP clients really don't seem to implement that many of  
the XEPs, and so don't really take advantage of all the capabilities  
of the XMPP network.  We have tons of XEPs written up, and the  
majority of clients only support a handful at best.  Often times, we  
have XEPs that solve the same problem in multiple ways: we have no  
less than /three/ methods just for doing avatars!  Granted, one of  
them is deprecated and one of them is informational (albeit the most  
widely-supported of the three methods), but still.  That's just AVATARS.

If Jingle is the 'new stream transport system,' that's fine, but it's  
starting to look dangerously like we have two entirely separate  
methods for /negotiating raw streams between clients/, and that's not  
even getting into the various methods of stream transport that each  
can negotiate.  If stream profiles is the method for negotiating TCP  
streams, and Jingle is the method for negotiating UDP streams, that's  
fine too (although I'd argue that file transfer is properly a TCP  
stream rather than a UDP one).

Maybe I'm overreacting, but I'm already seeing a place down the road  
where we have multiple incompatible file transfer methods, and that's  
not going to help client interoperability.  If I create a new client  
from scratch, do I implement Jingle and the associated file transfer,  
and just ignore stream profiles?  Do I stick to the widely- 
implemented stream profile method, and ignore Jingle's FT?  Do I have  
to implement BOTH, and try to transparently hide from the user which  
is being used?

Just my $0.02 here, but... :)

-- 
Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com>
Trillian Messenger - http://www.trillian.cc/




More information about the Standards mailing list