On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 02:11, Julian Missig wrote: > Offline support and multicast are covered by more permanent caching, aka > webdav-like stuff (or webdav). > *nod* hence my later email > What do you mean by firewall support? What's needed that can't be > handled with PASS? > Just to get it clear in my own head (its 2:20am here) how would pass handle the situation I suggested .. 2 users, at different offices, but both offices are NAT'd and use the same reserved ip address subnet
David -- rest of included message -- > Julian > > On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 19:59, David Sutton wrote: > > chicken and egg .. sometimes you need to think about how something might > > work to see what problems would occur. I want standardisation too. > > > > * Offline support (pass as it stands offers no caching that I can see) > > * Firewall support (example 2 users, 2 locations, same NAT'd ip address > > range) > > * 'Multicast' (single send, multiple receive) > > > > David > > > > On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 00:47, Julian Missig wrote: > > > Long wordy replies like this are exactly what I'm trying to get away > > > from. I want a quick, short bullet list of what's wrong with current > > > stuff. > > > > > > As far as I can tell, your entire message boils down to the "PASS > > > doesn't allow more permanent file caching" -- the rest of it is about > > > lack of standardization... which happens because no one is agreeing on > > > how to do file transfer, which is what I will slowly get it. > > > > > > I don't want suggested systems. I want to know what is wrong. In less > > > than 50 words per point. Instead of many people posting many proposals, > > > let's figure out what the problem is first. > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 19:33, David Sutton wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I think part of the problem is that HTTP/FTP OOB + PASS is good up to > > > > a point, but there needs to be an additional part, which is what I was > > > > trying to address. I know of someone on the jdev conference area (I > > > > think its Simon, but its late and i'm half asleep) who is using PASS for > > > > streaming data. This is all fine and good for small things, but not > > > > random files like many people on IMs like to throw at their contact list > > > > .. and OOB would be the communication mechanism between the server > > > > software and the clients, but I can see a lot of potential wastage of > > > > bandwidth if thats all you use. Take the person who sends a file to 5 > > > > people all on the same jabber server .. only one upload was required if > > > > you take a system like the one I suggested, and the users don't have to > > > > be online. It keeps the files, which could be anything, seperate from > > > > the users data on the jabber server. It gives a standard for other > > > > people to work with. HTTP/FTP OOB as it stands basically says that i'm > > > > going to somehow upload a file somewhere, and tell you where it is .. > > > > what I'm trying for is saying 'where' the file is going, and how you can > > > > go collect it. > > > > > > > > The system I suggested would not be any good for things like streamed > > > > voice or images, but then again, thats another reason for having PASS. > > > > > > > > David > > > > -- > > > > jid: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > ps: if you tried to add me in the last hour or two, I got the request, > > > > but gabber nose-dived on me and I wasn't running in debug so don't have > > > > your jid > > > > > > > > -- rest of included message -- > > > > On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 23:47, Julian Missig wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 18:33, Julian Missig wrote: > > > > > > A lot of people have been talking about all sorts of ways to do file > > > > > > trasnfer. Before temas and I (and others) start working on making JEPs > > > > > > out of the current file transfer implementations, I want to know what's > > > > > > wrong with them. > > > > > > > > > > > > So my question is: What is wrong with the current HTTP/FTP OOB + PASS > > > > > > solution? > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently the list is: > > > > > > - limited to HTTP/FTP (need a better way to indicate protocols > > > > > > supported, possibly browse?) > > > > > > - PASS doesn't allow more permanent file caching > > > > > > - lack of documentation > > > > > > - lack of implementation > > > > > > > > > > And before anyone says anything, by lack of implementation I mean that > > > > > it's not extremely widely implemented, in fact I'm not aware of any PASS > > > > > client implementations yet. However, jabber.org does have PASS support > > > > > and some clients already do HTTP/FTP OOB. > > > _______________________________________________ > jdev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
