A lot of the core ideas are the same, but the JEP is moving in a direction that is better factored and more generic.
Joe
On 3/31/06, Stephen Pendleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been doing some implementation work using libjingle and referencing
JEP-0166 and I have noticed that libjingle version 0.2.1 and the JEP-0166 do
not seem to match up. For example in JEP-0166 Example 1 displays an example
initiation stanza:
<iq to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/balcony' from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/orchard'
id='jingle1' type='set'>
<jingle xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle'
action=''
initiator='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/orchard '
sid='a73sjjvkla37jfea'>
<description ...>
<transport ...>
</jingle>
</iq>
but Libjingle outputs:
<cli:iq to=" [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Talk.v860770CBCA" type="set"
xmlns:cli="jabber:client">
<session xmlns="http://www.google.com/session" type="initiate"
id="3245625544" initiator="[EMAIL PROTECTED]/imov"><description
xmlns="http://www.google.com/session/phone ">
<payload-type xmlns="http://www.google.com/session/phone" id="102"
name="iLBC"/>
</description>
</session>
</cli:iq>
Should I just attribute this to the fact that both the JEP and libjingle are
under heavy development? Or am I missing something major? I am assuming that
libjingle and the JEP's will converge at some point. I did see that
libjingle 0.3.0 is out so perhaps that will fix some of these issues.
Thanks,
Stephen
