-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jimmy Zhang wrote: > Excuse my ignorance, after read your examples a bit more, I had only > more questions... > why not exchanging well-formed XML messages for each request and > response like SIP??
Because SIP sucks? But seriously, Jabber/XMPP technologies were designed this way from the very beginning (when Jeremie Miller invented them in 1998). It's a bit late to change things now. > for some reason this partial conversation style of XMPP looks pretty > unnatural?? Heh, I chatted with Tim Bray about this at a conference a few years ago and he said "well, I wouldn't have designed it that way" -- i.e., he would have sent complete documents, rather than dreaming up something "unnatural" like XML streams. So yes, streaming XML seems unnatural to people who are used to thinking of XML as a document format. Yet there is no really good reason why a message should be a full document, is there? > Why is XMPP this way?? Because. :P But it turns out that streaming XML has some inherent benefits, one of which is that you don't have to create a new parser instance every time you want to send, receive, or route a message. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEbo+JNF1RSzyt3NURAk4oAKCJ6GLqc4H/NF4DZuYWJpztIy5xyQCcCP7Y i/V52aUC64GWUTfBORKVbWQ= =5To2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
