[Standards] switching between BOSH and TCP?
stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Mar 31 17:53:08 UTC 2008
Justin Karneges wrote:
> 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
> happen? :)
It didn't. :)
>> 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.
That's similar to what they do in IMPS / Wireless Village.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards