[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: HTTP File Upload
binary at jrudevels.org
Thu Jul 30 10:19:00 UTC 2015
This thread shows that XMPP really need some roadmap of what it should
look like and what is its target on the market.
Because otherwise it's not obvious, how to decide on the topics like
this. Of course, jingle does not mean we can't serve offline transfers,
it can be solved by adding another infrastructure for hosting them, but
given the current level of implementation jingle, are we ready to add
more and more XEPs again?
While I'm very interested in an infrastructure that's fully XMPP-driven,
I'm not sure that we can obtain it in a reasonable time, because take a
look on Pubsub.
But again, I don't want to look like an advocate of utilizing HTTP, I
really think it would be much greater to have XMPP infrastructure, but
how can we motivate someone to implement that?
I know that XSF is not commercial and probably does not want to solve
such a question, delegating that to the companies that use XMPP instead,
but can it actually be the thing because of which many companies refused
to use XMPP recently? They can be just not sure how to use it, yes, they
could contribute to the community and solve this but somehow they don't
Sorry, for some offtopic, but I'm really sensible to this question, as I
can't decide for myself also.
On 30/07/2015 12:06, Goffi wrote:
> On 30/07/2015 11:35, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
>> Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:07:28 +0200
>> Goffi <goffi at goffi.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> why wouldn't file transfer work offline or with MUC ? We just need a way
> to request a file with an uri.
>>> 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.
> jid auth validation is a clear big advantage over random url.
>> Jingle adoption? It has been 10 years left. Where is it?
>> Should we wait 10 more years?
> jingle is adopted in several clients as far as I know:
> Not sure if FT is available everywhere though.
> Anyway, I agree that a first good step would be to deprecate XEP-0096,
> and I have already expressed my opinion, if HTTP upload is validated
> I'll implement it.
More information about the Standards