On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Lee Dryburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this just stands to open the whole binary encoded debate once > again. I'm too much of a coward to be caught in the crossfire so I > will duck out and not give my opinion.
Once I was one of those baldly standing for a binary binding for mobiles (and other devices with limited capabilities). Then I started doing some private tests and I realized that the situation is at least a bit controversial: - a fully extensible xml binding is not easy when dealing with streams and not documents, since you don't know in advance the dictionary of tokens that will be used; a solution with a fixed grammar (e.g jabber:client namespace e few others) would be really a step back in the xmpp tradition of extensibility - compression is not as bad as I thought and if time to market is essential that's the only viable solution - if you do such an operation for mobiles you have to consider several other optimizations that are not less important: the ability to resume a session with something like a cookie (for this reason a I like bosh), limiting the initial roster get / presence burst / the ability to keep the session responsive when disconnected but not offline (e.g. my session is still alive, but the phone is not reachable in that moment: some applications may want to know that the message could be delivered with some delays though they see you online and available) > Additionally I've made a request to interview him and if there is a > consensus over questions to ask, I can certainly consider it. For my concern, I'd like to know whether they just taking the binary xml path and with which of extensibility, or they are approaching the mobile problem addressing the whole class of problems I've listed -- Fabio Forno, Ph.D. Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com jabber id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
