[Standards] switching between BOSH and TCP?

Pedro Melo melo at simplicidade.org
Sat Mar 29 19:51:16 UTC 2008


Hi,

On Mar 28, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I've been chatting with someone off-list about mobile optimizations  
> and
> he suggested that we might want to build in the ability to seamlessly
> switch between BOSH and TCP. For example you would use the TCP binding
> when you have a high volume of activity (active chat sessions with
> multiple contacts, Jingle negotiation, etc.) but then go back to BOSH
> when the activity level drops below some threshold.
>
> So a few questions:
>
> 1. Is BOSH acceptable in practice for high-activity periods?

This is more a meta-reply to several posts on this thread that argue  
that BOSH is more heavy (bandwidth-wise) than TCP.

Sure, you have all the HTTP headers going back and forth, and the SSL/ 
TLS negotiation.

But we should not assume constant pooling in our decisions. A BOSH CM  
could implement a long-lived HTTP connection (like the ones used by  
the Comet-style protocols) and with a short delay on response (to  
accumulate stanzas), it should be pretty good. Not as good as TCP  
sure, but enough to weight against the BOSH ability of keeping a XMPP  
session alive in the presence of changing client IP address.

Best regards,
-- 
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: melo at simplicidade.org
Use XMPP!





More information about the Standards mailing list