[Summit] [BOSH] BOSH discussion at Summit 12
stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Oct 11 18:47:49 UTC 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 10/10/12 4:55 PM, Winfried Tilanus wrote:
> On 10/09/2012 05:17 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 10/9/12 6:51 AM, Jack Moffitt wrote:
>> 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.
OK, so I think we'd schedule this for Thursday afternoon. I am somehow
expecting Friday afternoon to be quiet.
>>> 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.
How would we handle fallback? I suppose that's a good topic to discuss
in the meeting, but it would also be good to know what our options are
(e.g., how do you discover the WebSocket endpoint in the first place
and how do you discover that you can fall back to BOSH?). XEP-0156
might be relevant here.
> 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...
Yes, that would be very helpful!
>>> 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.
Let's all commit to reviewing it before the Summit and provide
comments in this thread.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Summit