[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: HTTP File Upload

Evgeny Khramtsov xramtsov at gmail.com
Thu Jul 30 09:35:24 UTC 2015

Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:07:28 +0200
Goffi <goffi at goffi.org> wrote:

> My point is that HTTP transfer is nothing more than a P2P transfer 
> between server and requester(s) (and why would you not store the file 
> ?), and while trying to make life easier it will result in either 
> developers implementing both (so more complications at the end),
> either they'll implement only one (say HTTP), resulting in a feature
> loss.

What is the point in implementing file transfer protocol which will not
work in all cases (MUC, offline, etc)? Why a developer would need
proxy65 if it's not MUC friendly? I really see no point.

> Beside the risk of losing the url that I have already mentioned, HTTP 
> give  no advantage over Socks5, and doesn't do NAT traversal as
> Jingle can do, and it's an other whole different server to maintain.

There is a clear advantage over Socks5: MUC and offline support.
And there is no NAT traversal problem for HTTP as far as I'm concerned.

> Anyway, if the HTTP XEP is published I'll implement it anyway, I just 
> hope it will not have bad side effects on jingle adoption, neither it 
> will prevent to have new XEP for requesting a file with jingle (which
> is a more elegant option in my opinion). If indeed both can live
> together, well, why not.

Jingle adoption? It has been 10 years left. Where is it?
Should we wait 10 more years?

More information about the Standards mailing list