[Standards] switching between BOSH and TCP?

Peter Saint-Andre 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.


Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080331/4a43952a/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list