[Standards] Council on Stanza Repeaters without Multicast
dave at cridland.net
Fri Apr 4 11:41:56 UTC 2008
On Fri Apr 4 11:28:50 2008, Pedro Melo wrote:
> Yes, that was not the point of this, it was only to show that this
> problem is important now, and not "when we have 100k subscribers in
> the future". The future is here now.
Ah, but it isn't. :-)
I mean, the future's never here now, of course, because then it
wouldn't be the future, of course. ;-)
But more importantly large public network-accessible nodes aren't
here now. To put it another way, the problem we are aiming to solve
has not yet occured.
So my note that "nothing's going to help this case" was actually to
the point - this case isn't the one we're expecting (and hoping for)
in the future, and it's not the one which has the problem we're
attempting to solve.
It would, however, be perfectly fair to suggest that one of the
reasons why we don't yet have this problem might be because neither
MUC nor PubSub are considered scalable enough by those that would
otherwise use them.
>> ... unless you ran a repeater over the component link, of course,
>> which might work. Or might not - but a component protocol might
>> need this sort of thing.
> It was really [OT] and an implementation detail. There are other
> alternatives that we prefer.
Understandably, but it did make me think there's a possible place for
repeaters in an area I'd not considered at all before.
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at jabber.org
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
More information about the Standards