[Standards] [jdev] Google Androïd SDK not XMPP compliant ?
fabio.forno at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 11:36:45 UTC 2008
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Lee Dryburgh <dryburghl at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this just stands to open the whole binary encoded debate once
> again. I'm too much of a coward to be caught in the crossfire so I
> will duck out and not give my opinion.
Once I was one of those baldly standing for a binary binding for
mobiles (and other devices with limited capabilities). Then I started
doing some private tests and I realized that the situation is at least
a bit controversial:
- a fully extensible xml binding is not easy when dealing with streams
and not documents, since you don't know in advance the dictionary of
tokens that will be used; a solution with a fixed grammar (e.g
jabber:client namespace e few others) would be really a step back in
the xmpp tradition of extensibility
- compression is not as bad as I thought and if time to market is
essential that's the only viable solution
- if you do such an operation for mobiles you have to consider several
other optimizations that are not less important: the ability to resume
a session with something like a cookie (for this reason a I like
bosh), limiting the initial roster get / presence burst / the ability
to keep the session responsive when disconnected but not offline (e.g.
my session is still alive, but the phone is not reachable in that
moment: some applications may want to know that the message could be
delivered with some delays though they see you online and available)
> Additionally I've made a request to interview him and if there is a
> consensus over questions to ask, I can certainly consider it.
For my concern, I'd like to know whether they just taking the binary
xml path and with which of extensibility, or they are approaching the
mobile problem addressing the whole class of problems I've listed
Fabio Forno, Ph.D.
Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com
jabber id: ff at jabber.bluendo.com
More information about the Standards