[Standards] XEP-0225: Multiple Connections Per JID?

Daniel Henninger daniel.henninger at jivesoftware.com
Fri Feb 8 23:03:42 UTC 2008

----- "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> Daniel Henninger wrote:
> >>> Anyway, am I reading this right as resources seem to be the way
> >>> to go, even if it might require some folk to rethink how they're 
> >>> using/referencing components?
> >> Yes, I think XEP-0225 will require a significant rethink of
> >> component handling in certain implementations. But the idea is
> that
> >> the rethink will be worth the effort since the new approach will
> be
> >> more flexible etc. So so we hope. :)
> > 
> > Indeed!  I'm pleased to see we're able to rethink some things with
> > transports now that they're starting to branch out from more than
> > just IM gateways.  Are you planning on doing a draft about these
> > concepts that I should keep an eye out for?  ;D
> What do you mean by "transports"? If you mean "external component"
> then
> yes we're thinking beyond IM gateways, but then again we've been
> doing
> that for years (MUC, pubsub, user directories, etc.). I've never
> liked
> the term "transport" (too vague), which is why I started calling them
> "gateways" years ago...

I must admit that I kind of alternate the names.  Generally they all mean the same thing to me.  lol  Though I did make a distinction between them in the IM Gateway plugin.  The gateway being the entire mechanism that's handling the interaction an XMPP session and any of the individual legacy protocols, and a transport being an implementation of one of the protocols.  *shrug*  It's not a particularly useful distinction.  I kind of like component in general, just haven't trained myself to stick to a single phrase.


More information about the Standards mailing list