[Standards] switching between BOSH and TCP?

Stephen Pendleton stephenpendleton at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 31 18:48:03 UTC 2008

> From: justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
> To: standards at xmpp.org
> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:29:56 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Standards] switching between BOSH and TCP?
> 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.

> 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? :)

BOSH does currently solve the problem because BOSH is in draft stage and
implementations actually exist and are encouraged, while XEP-0198 is still at 0.3
experimental stage and no server implementations actually exist that I know of (aside from an experimental one that may exist jabberd2). That is how the choice happened for me anyway!

I like XEP-0198 a lot. I used it for a peer-to-peer XMPP client for MANET that I wrote but in that case I had control over the implementations on both the endpoints of the connection so lack of server-side support wasn't an issue.

Windows Live Hotmail is giving away Zunes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080331/5a0777ad/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list