Rw: [Standards] compliance levels for 2008

Pedro Melo melo at
Thu May 17 18:01:12 UTC 2007


On May 14, 2007, at 10:35 PM, Tomasz Sterna wrote:

> Dnia 14-05-2007, Pn o godzinie 12:17 -0700, JD Conley napisał(a):
>> Also, the component protocol needs to be updated to be more XMPP
>> friendly and secure (AKA use stream:features and SASL),
> Agreed.
> jabberd2 component protocol is a good basis for this.
>>  as well as be
>> coupled with a suite of protocols for performing common tasks
>> component
>> writers crave like: GetAllBareJIDResourcePresences, [...]
> Do we really need all these?
> I don't see a reason for anything more than authenticated hooking into
> packet router and binding a set of domains to route into the  
> component.
> Component does it's own packet handling.
> Anything more is something like a component-framework put in a server.
> It's a JCR, jadperl etc. component job, not server's.

Having a poor external component protocol means that every advanced  
feature that requires a strong binding to the JSM inside the core  
router needs to be written in the same language as the server, or at  
least that the loadable module must be binary compatible with it.

If you had a strong external component protocol, with std hooks  
inside the JSM (most servers have the concept of a JSM) then you  
could have a more open field of components.

You could use a PEP/PubSub from one project with the C2S from  
another, with the S2S from yet another.

Choice is good. Separation of components in different process/server  
is also good.

Best regards,
Pedro Melo
Jabber ID: melo at
Use Jabber!

More information about the Standards mailing list