28.08.2010 01:18, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 27 August 2010 16:12, Evgeniy Khramtsov<[email protected]> wrote:
Good move, Remko. Now ejabberd will violate your synthetic rules for
sure.
I'm completely disappointed in XSF: noone cares about implementations
feedback anymore, it is much more funny to flame implementation wars instead
of make all implementations happy.
So we ended from what we started: PEP doesn't scale.
Do you have a better solution that doesn't have the issues your
implementation has? All we want are working specifications, and that's
what we're aiming to develop.
The question is what is better: increase traffic or increase server's
memory? I think it is better to increase traffic a bit. This is not
fatal, since all modern clients implementations has PEP support, so
actually you don't need to filter anything.
The only cries I've heard that PEP doesn't scale seem to be coming
from folk involved in ejabberd. I'm not sure why that is.
Because writing XEPs where server should store foreign servers info is
not a way to go. In fact, tight servers will double the data of each
others: presences and resources. You can imagine the amount of data if
server1 has 1M of users online and server2 has 2M of users online. Do
you remember any other technologies where it takes place? HTTP, SMTP,
SIP, etc? *Nowhere*. PEP design is a flaw.
--
Regards,
Evgeniy Khramtsov, ProcessOne.
xmpp:[email protected].
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
