[Summit] [BOSH] BOSH discussion at Summit 12

Winfried Tilanus winfried at tilanus.com
Wed Oct 10 22:55:21 UTC 2012


On 10/09/2012 05:17 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 10/9/12 6:51 AM, Jack Moffitt wrote:

Hi,

> Agreed on remote participation. At least Google
> Hangouts use Jingle so we won't feel too guilty. ;-)

Great, I will get myself a webcam ;-)

Looking at my schedule and the time difference, it would suit me best to
have the discussion in the afternoon, Portland time. Any of the days are
fine with me.

>> 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.

AFAIK websockets itself nor the JS APIs mandate any fallback mechanism,
so we are free to use whatever we like. And we happen to like 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.

Appr. 2 years ago Stefan Strigler did some benchmarking with the
experimental support for websockets that was added to JSJaC
(https://github.com/sstrigler/JSJaC/tree/websockets_deprecated) in
combination with the preliminary support for it in eJabberd. Compared to
BOSH in the same combo, it was remarkably fast. If Steve still has his
benchmarks around, it would be nice if he could step in here...

>> 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 assumed that the changes to the websocket protocol in the last years
would also need an update of the XEP, probably that assumption is
incorrect. But I would like to know for sure.

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

Thanks, that would be very useful.

Winfried


More information about the Summit mailing list