List Info

Thread: JEP-0124: comments on proposed version 1.5




JEP-0124: comments on proposed version 1.5
user name
2006-04-28 12:42:50
> Peter wrote:
>>     *Some runtime environments constrain the number
of simultaneous HTTP
>> requests a client may make to each connection
manager; if such clients
>> need to connect using more than one account at the
same time, then
>> support for multi-stream sessions is essential.
>>
>>     * While XMPP does not allow two sessions with
the same full JID to
>> be open at the same time, it does use one stream in
each direction for
>> client-to-server connections; support for multiple
streams enables
>> clients that connect via the HTTP Binding to
emulate that behavior and
>> thereby reduce network traffic.

I don't understand this second point (even if I assume that

'server-to-server' was meant instead of
'client-to-server').

The intention of the original text was simply to say that
restricted clients 
*need* multi-streams if they want to open more than one XMPP
stream (with 
different JIDs). Other entities might not need to support
multi-stream 
sessions in these cases (they could open multiple sessions
instead), but it 
would be much more efficient for them to employ multi-stream
sessions. 
(Since with multi-stream sessions only one HTTP request to
the server is 
necessary to service all the streams in the session.)

I agree with the rest of Peter's clarifications.

Vinod wrote:
> Shouldn't multi-stream support go into a separate JEP?
 This could be
> used on both ends of a JEP-0124 implementation.  Eg. an
HTTP client
> using multiple streams to a JEP-0124 server, and the
JEP-0124 server
> using a single tcp connection with multiple streams to
an xmpp server.

IMO multi-stream sessions fitted very neatly into JEP-0124.

Broadening the explicit target of JEP-0124 to include
server-to-server 
connections would seem to be a good idea - especially if
people do start 
running their own servers (something Peter often advocates).
The existing 
JEP would probably only need an extra sentence in the
introduction and a few 
minor language changes (e.g. 'client' -> 'entity'). I
think any security 
review should take those changes into account.

- Ian

[1]

about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )