[Summit] [BOSH] BOSH discussion at Summit 12

Adam Brault adam at andyet.net
Tue Oct 9 15:48:13 UTC 2012


Just wanted to chime in.

We're sort of big XMPP community lovers here at &yet and it looks like 
we'll have a couple extra seats for RealtimeConf and RedisConf.

So---if anyone's coming to the XSF Summit and would like to come, too, 
here's a limited-number discount ticket ($400 off!) that will go away 
Thursday:

RealtimeConf Discount Ticket
https://tito.io/&yet/realtime-2012?release_id=glgbjwqc4yg

RealtimeConf + RedisConf Discount Ticket
https://tito.io/&yet/realtime-2012?release_id=1pc-wef4oc4
> Peter Saint-Andre <mailto:stpeter at stpeter.im>
> October 9, 2012 8:17 AM
> -----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-----
> Jack Moffitt <mailto:jack at metajack.im>
> October 9, 2012 5:51 AM
>> 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?
>
>> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> jack.
> Winfried Tilanus <mailto:winfried at tilanus.com>
> October 9, 2012 1:00 AM
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/28/2012 10:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 8/28/12 2:03 PM, Jack Moffitt wrote:
>
> (Note: this discussion this was on the members mailing list, but I am
> sending it to the summit and BOSH mailing lists, because I think it is
> most relevant there).
>
>>> If there are enough interested parties, I'd love to have a
>>> discussion about future directions of BOSH, or perhaps some kind
>>>   of strophe-related sprint.
>> We had some discussions last time (in Brussels) about HTTP/XMPP
>> integration, but I'm sorry to say they didn't really lead anywhere
>>   because we all dropped the ball on follow up. Perhaps we could
>> pick up the ball again in Portland...
>
> 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?
>
> I think there are two mayor topics to discuss:
>
> 1)
> 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.
>
> 2)
> 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.
>
> CU!
>
> Winfried
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlBz2a0ACgkQcxyv01PBoy/h9ACfbRBo2wAzVr0MSPWjokUTWrLk
> /VUAoOiWkvaR8mWBtI2JMJu2u5B/S+be
> =T67F
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Peter Saint-Andre <mailto:stpeter at stpeter.im>
> August 28, 2012 12:47 PM
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> It's a bit discouraging that I've received no feedback about this on
> the list. :(
>
> However, someone poked me offlist about including some Internet of
> Things and SmartGrid topics on the agenda, which I think is a great
> idea. In fact, I think it would make sense to have a "deep dive" into
> that area for half a day. This leads me to think that we could
> productively hold a 2-day or 1.5-day summit: general topics on one day
> and use the other day for two deep-dive discussions, one of which
> would be IOT/SmartGrid (suggestions are welcome for the other deep dive).
>
> I will run this by the XSF Board of Directors to get their input (it
> will cost us more to hold a 2-day meeting), but it seems reasonable to me.
>
> Peter
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlA9IDQACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwOKACfe5Qkfxuj0/cd2+Rl+3/Se7RB
> izQAn1RHN9IkWIEo42bt9V06MJ2G0/kw
> =Asf2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/summit/attachments/20121009/0a6ffad0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1221 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/summit/attachments/20121009/0a6ffad0/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1234 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/summit/attachments/20121009/0a6ffad0/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1221 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/summit/attachments/20121009/0a6ffad0/attachment-0005.jpg>


More information about the Summit mailing list