Yann Leboulanger <aste...@lagaule.org> wrote: > As it's not possiblt to have private mail, let's continue here. > > Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > > Yann Leboulanger <aste...@lagaule.org> wrote: > > > >> Jonathan Schleifer a écrit : > > It's not. It's just that I want to show you that it's not true that > > this is only affecting GPRS users. > > thousands of people uses svn version and have no problem, it's why I > still thing xmpp ping is a good thing.
Who also complained about frequent disconnects, yes. > You can look in trac, some people are disappointed because they send a > message, and have no answer. They have to wait 10 minutes at least to > know they are disconnected. Gajim is a *instant* messager. Having to > wait 10 minutes to know we are no more connected is not an option in > my opinion. And ping would help there how? Gajim would disconnect and can't reconnect, as the connection is dead. If the connection wouldn't be dead, TCP/IP would have fixed that already. If TCP/IP couldn't recover the connection and it hangs, reconnecting won't work. The only case where a reconnect might work is if TCP/IP interrupts the connection. > > I committed it to trunk, like always. And I told you that I do that > > and asked you to backport it to 0.12. Plus, I'm not on the > > translators list, as I can't subscribe, which I also already told > > you. > > translations was for 0.12. I didn't see why it was for trunk. Because the translator based on trunk and also translated the XHTML stuff etc. > And I > don't know when you told me to commit it to 0.12 branch, nor why you > can't do that. I don't backport changes to 0.12, you do. Noone except you committed to the 0.12 branch at all. Everybody always committed to trunk and you backported it. Why should that be different now? > As you cannot be in translators mailling list, I'll > maintership to someone who can receive and review patches from other > translators. You could just manually subscribe me… > > Why not send a blank space every 55 sec to avoid routers closing > > idle connections? That would also detect if our connection is dead, > > thanks to TCP/IP. And that's what one really understands when > > talking about keep alive. What we do is ping, not keep alive. > > See my comments above. Having to wait 10 minutes for an *instant* > messager is not an option in my opinion. You don't have to wait for 10 minutes. Either the connection can be recovered and lags for a time, in which case a reconnect would fail, or TCP/IP disconnects you, in which you can reconnect and it might succeed again. But when a TCP/IP connection is dead, a reconnect won't work either. So where's the point? Plus, it's not 10 minutes. It's only a long time if we don't send anything. But sending anything doesn't mean we need to send a ping. We can send a space, that's enough. If the TCP/IP connection has an error, TCP/IP will close it on the next send. So we send a space and detect that the connection isn't working anymore. No need to XMPP ping. > Sure we have to find a solution. But that can (and will IMO) take a > long time ... There's no need for it to take a long time. Why not just send a space every 55 sec and let TCP/IP handle it for us? You always compare having no keep alive at all to having XMPP ping. Why not compare XMPP ping to having a keep alive the normal way, which is sending a space? That *WILL* force TCP/IP to close the connection if it's dead. I really wonder why every other client and all servers are fine with just sending a space and why we are not… And I wonder why nobody complained about dead connections not being detected by them… (Again: No keep alive is something completely different than sending a space. With no keep alive, it might really take 10 minutes) -- Jonathan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gajim-devel mailing list Gajim-devel@gajim.org http://lists.gajim.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/gajim-devel
