That's the purpose of PASS, yes. On Sun, 2002-02-17 at 06:34, Philippe Raxhon wrote: > Just a question: can this "design" be used to do file transfer with > other IM like ICQ (I don't know how they do it)? > > Julian Missig wrote: > > >PASS wouldn't be permanently storing mp3 and divx files and whatever > >else people send, it's just a proxy. > > > >I want to get OOB and PASS working with decent JEPs before we even begin > >arguing webdav & friends, because that has a lot of the filesharing and > >caching issues... > > > >As for using your own protocol, I'm not a fan of that at all. There is > >really no reason to recreate HTTP/FTP and other such file-sending > >protocols. The entire point of sending files out-of-bound is that there > >are existing protocols which already do it and do it better, because > >they have experience. > > > >In the end, using HTTP/FTP instead of writing our own protocol probably > >involves *less* work because there is craploads of code out there to > >copy, and HTTP/FTP don't have any of the bugs we may be creating when we > >create our own protocol. > > > >So, again I ask for comments which tell me *what is wrong with HTTP/FTP > >OOB and PASS*, not comments which tell me how you want to do it. > > > >Julian > > > >On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 22:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >>hello again, > >>it might sound annoying but as i already mentioned i�m currently > >>working on a filesharing component, already done parts of it, will be > >>done next week(maybe). > >> > >>My idea behind filetransfer was not to send the file over jabber > >>server because this would flood the server soon with mp3 and divx > >>movies (esspecially filesharing). Whatever we have a xml > >>connection and that would be ideal to control the filetransfer, you > >>can send "abort", "resume" commands via jabber xml and do the > >>byte transfer with another very primitive socket that simple creates > >>a connection and pushs the data through it. In my point of view this > >>has two advantages. writing tcp sockets does not need much time > >>(in comparition with writing a http/ftp server). a simple tcp socket is > >>easier to control then many spawned http servers. consider, that > >>each http thread/http account would have to need it�s own > >>restrictions. > >>of course a http has the advantage that you can browse the > >>directories and find other interesting files but what if user does not > >>want to allow this? (i.e. he wants to offer this person only one file) I > >>wrote a iq for my jabberfs to enable filebrowsing as well as updating > >>the jabberfs databases... > >>http://skabber.rudbek.com/jabberfs/jabberfs-iq-files.txt > >>there you have two ways to find out what kind of files are offered at > >>this client. a) you ask for a full file list of all subdirs (it is optimised, > >>it wont send everything again each time but only the changes) > >> b) you browse the file step by step by geting only the files of the > >>*current* directory. for the protocol for jabberfs is only onw iq not > >>finished yet, the jabberfs:iq:options to set the connection speed as > >>well as some other options like <firewalled/> > >> > >>btw, my jabberfs:iq:filetransfer is not so complicate. in general it�s > >>nearly the same as jabber:iq:oob. maybe we can accept it as an > >>alternative way to passing url/ it passes the ip + port > >>as well as some additional file information (because i consider the > >>jabber xml as a good control way for the transfer) > >> > >>cya, Edrin
_______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
