[Standards] Jingle "implementability"

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Feb 4 16:54:56 UTC 2008


Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote:
> Hello
> 
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 04:50:08PM -0800, Robert Quattlebaum wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2008, at 1:14 AM, Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
>>> Stanza router could pipeline jingle stanzas through all jingle plugins. 
>>> Since a plugin tracks state, etc, it knows if it is interested in this 
>>> stanza or not. So if it wants the stanza, stanza gets "eaten", else 
>>> app-level stanza router tries to pass it to next plugin, etc.
>> While such a model works well for apps with plug-ins in the same process as 
>> the app, it does not work as well if your plug-ins are in different 
>> processes--because it would be a blocking API.
> 
> Why? The router sends the stanza to the first plugin and stops blocking
> -- lets it process it. After a while, the first plugin sends the stanza
> back with note "I do not want this, give it to someone else" -- as any
> other message from the plugin.

My conclusion from this discussion is that the issue does not have any
protocol implications.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080204/94f9cbe5/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list