[Jabber-IETF] Agenda items

Peter Millard me at pgmillard.com
Fri Oct 4 10:03:55 CDT 2002


Pete Chown wrote:
> Iain Shigeoka wrote:
>>  I'd hate to see the IETF
>> pass a standard that actually breaks most existing software
>> implementations!
>
> So would I.  I've no objection to the document noting the current
> practice.  At the same time, I believe future XMPP software should be
> required to implement namespaces properly.

I know that the jabber community is looking hard at how to improve our
namespace correctness, and the help of the WG would be greatly appreciated.
It would be nice to lay out some kind of "migration plan" which doesn't
break all current implementations, but outlines a way for us to get to be
fully namespace compliant.

> I don't want to be too harsh about your idea. :-) I do see where you
> are coming from, because it isn't very easy to use standard XML
> parsers with XMPP.  I have to admit, I was tempted to propose a
> different solution, which would make each XMPP message its own
> document.  So rather than there being a single overarching "stream"
> document, there would be a sequence of short XML documents, with some
> kind of separator between them.  Sadly, I think this is likely to be
> too big a change to be acceptable to the Jabber community... :-(

Lots of people in "jabber history" have looked at this solution since it
solves the problem of being able to easily use existing parsers. However, in
practice, (I've looked at prototypes that do this) spinning up a new parser
instance for each packet is EXTREMELY more expensive than the current stream
implementation. It's a much much more efficient solution. (Despite it being
a pain to code for :)

pgm.




More information about the xmppwg mailing list