[Summit] [BOSH] BOSH discussion at Summit 12

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Oct 9 15:17:02 UTC 2012


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/9/12 6:51 AM, Jack Moffitt wrote:
>> Unfortunately I won't be able to make it to Portland for Summit
>> 12, but I think it would be very good to discuss BOSH. So maybe
>> it would be possible for me to participate in the discussion by
>> some kind of tele-presence?
> 
> We can patch you in via Google Hangouts or some other such system 
> pretty easily I imagine. Is there a schedule some where so that
> others can participate this way as well?

I've been waiting for feedback on the summit@ list so that we can
figure out what needs to be on the agenda. So thanks for Winfried for
kicking this off. Agreed on remote participation. At least Google
Hangouts use Jingle so we won't feel too guilty. ;-)

>> Issues in the current protocol. A starting point for that is the
>> list at: http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/BoshIssues (though that list
>> needs some TLC from me). If we can identify the most important
>> issues on there and a direction to fix them, then already much
>> work is done.
> 
> Thanks for mentioning this list. It makes a good initial agenda :)
> 
>> Long term, the future of BOSH. In at summit 11 in Brussels the
>> opinion was vented to abandon BOSH asap in favor of websockets.
>> Though I think websockets should be superior to BOSH, I believe
>> we are far from the point where we can switch to websockets. One
>> of the reasons is beacuse the current extension for XMPP over
>> websockets needs some serious polishing up, it is not adapted to
>> the latest changes in the websocket protocol. So I think it would
>> be good to take a moment time to think about our long term
>> strategy and to look at who is able and willing to take on some
>> of the tasks that inevitable come out of that.
> 
> I think the websockets-only path would assume the same API in
> browser, but the implementation would fall back to long polling.
> This is probably not going to be as good as BOSH, so I think it
> probably makes sense to keep BOSH since it's already widely
> implemented. People will gradually quit using it as websockets
> deployment grows.

Jack, could you clarify what you mean by "assume the same API" and
"would fall back to long polling"? It seems to me that we might use
the same API but if WebSocket is available then the implementation
would use WebSocket, but it not then it would fall back to BOSH.

Furthermore, it would be very helpful to do some side-by-side tests of
BOSH vs. WebSocket to figure out what the performance improvements are
for using WebSocket.

> As for the XMPP over websockets spec being unpolished, I'm happy
> to take suggestions. As far as I know it's current with the
> websockets spec. Perhaps you are referring to the existing
> implementations and not the internet draft?

I'd be happy to take a look at the Internet-Draft again as well.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlB0P+4ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzyTACgz/hsmxOAOq5glp3oMYdZ8Crb
OAcAoJCYxakCrejAsBOPeo5uvQ7nN/kC
=8jiH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the Summit mailing list