[Standards] switching between BOSH and TCP?
justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
Mon Mar 31 17:29:56 UTC 2008
On Monday 31 March 2008 9:14 am, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
> I don't see why this is silly. As it says in the BOSH XEP: [BOSH] is useful
> in situations where a device or client is unable to maintain a long-lived
> TCP connection to an XMPP server.
Sure, but we don't need HTTP for that. I think BOSH should exist exclusively
for clients that for some reason cannot use TCP directly. If a client seeks
to work well when it cannot maintain long-lived connections, that's where
XEP-198 comes in.
The current situation is a mess. While XEP-198 has a high XEP number, the
concept is many years old, and when it was first introduced there was little
interest and the council rejected the proposal. It didn't see the light
until seventy-four XEPs after BOSH, and during that period developers
realized that maintaining TCP connectivity can be a problem and that BOSH
solves the problem. Complete disaster. Now there is interest in promoting
HTTP as the best transport for XMPP? How in the holy hell did this
> In particular I have implemented a BOSH solution
> where the session reconnect is triggered by a SMS message from the server
> to the client device. This saves lots of battery compared to the
> traditional long-lived TCP XMPP solutions since the data connection is not
> active when there is no "chat" activity.
This is a really cool idea though.
More information about the Standards