I tried the example with directly connection to 5222 and the performance
improved vastly.
I am running into another issue now.
I have setup ejabberd and opened port 5222.
I have setup nginx as a reverse proxy for ejabberd server. The nginx
configuration is as follows.
*stream{ upstream ejabberd-servers{ server ejabberd:5222; }
server{ listen 5222; proxy_pass ejabberd-servers; }}*
*ejabberd* point to the ejabberd server and I am using a docker container
to reverse proxy.
The smack code I am using to connect is as shown below.
*public void createConnectionObject(){ AbstractXMPPConnection conn
= null; try { XMPPTCPConnectionConfiguration.Builder
builderConfig = XMPPTCPConnectionConfiguration.builder();
SmackConfiguration.DEBUG = true;
builderConfig.setConnectTimeout(60000);
builderConfig.setHost(xmppHost);
builderConfig.setPort(xmppPort);
builderConfig.setServiceName(xmppDomain);
builderConfig.setDebuggerEnabled(true);
builderConfig.setSecurityMode(ConnectionConfiguration.SecurityMode.required);
/*System.setProperty("javax.net.ssl.trustStore",
"classpath:hereimkeystore.jks");*/
builderConfig.setKeystoreType("jks");
builderConfig.setKeystorePath("classpath:mykeystore.jks");
ProxyInfo proxyInfo = getProxyInfo();
builderConfig.setProxyInfo(proxyInfo); conn = new
XMPPTCPConnection(builderConfig.build());
conn.setPacketReplyTimeout(100000); conn.connect();
}catch(SmackException se){ System.out.println("Smack Exception
thrown"); }catch(IOException io){ System.out.println("IO
Exception thrown"); }catch(XMPPException xmppEx){
System.out.println("XMPP Exception thrown"); } this.connection =
conn;}private ProxyInfo getProxyInfo(){ ProxyInfo proxyInfo =
ProxyInfo.forHttpProxy(xmppHost, 443, null, null); return
proxyInfo;}*
But when I try to make the connection, I get the error
"java.net.SocketException: Unconnected sockets not implemented"
I understand nginx will only serve as a tcp proxy, so any pointers on
how to get this work?
Regards
Vaibhav
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Marcel Waldvogel <
marcel.waldvo...@uni-konstanz.de> wrote:
> With BOSH you can do the same things as with direct c2s XMPP (and even
> more, because guessing an RID is enough). So what should be the security
> concerns of using 5222 directly instead of 5280?
>
> <https://me.uni.kn/marcel.waldvogel>-Marcel Waldvogel
> <https://me.uni.kn/marcel.waldvogel>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vaibhav Ranglani <ranglani.vaib...@gmail.com>
> To: Jabber/XMPP software development list <jdev@jabber.org>
> Sent: Sa., 02 Juli 2016 11:57
> Subject: Re: [jdev] Message sending performance XEP-0124
>
> Thanks for the inputs Florian.
>
> This question is then related to the deployment side. Should I proxy the
> nginx server to ejabberd port 5222? If yes, then can somebody point to a
> post where this has been explained?
>
> Also wouldn't directly exposing port 5222 to the internet cause security
> concerns?
>
> Thanks
> Vaibhav
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Florian Schmaus <f...@geekplace.eu> wrote:
>
>> On 01.07.2016 16:22, Marcel Waldvogel wrote:
>> > For reliability requirements over wireless connections: don't use BOSH;
>> > do use Stream Management (XEP-0198)
>>
>> Exactly. And if you want the BOSH advantage over XMPP's TCP binding,
>> i.e., using standard HTTP(S) ports, then use XMPP's WebSocket binding
>> (RFC 7395) + Stream Management.
>>
>> Some background to this thread:
>> https://community.igniterealtime.org/message/258562#comment-258562
>>
>> I have not much experience with BOSH as I don't/seldom use it. I've
>> merged Smack's BOSH branch when I took over Smack and fixed a few
>> things, but the code should be considered unmaintained.
>>
>> I wonder if BOSH is suitable for mobile environments. In my experience
>> those environments require being able to check the underlying TCP
>> connection for liveness, which is not trivial when using BOSH I imagine.
>> Using the BOSH Technique in mobile environments could cause serious UX
>> issues if the first connection hangs in the long-polling state because
>> the TCP connection broke down silently.
>>
>> WebSocket doesn't have this issues, and provides the same feature set as
>> BOSH when used with Stream Management. I think it is the future and that
>> there is no real reason, besides implementation availability, to use
>> BOSH any more. Sadly there is no support for XMPP over WebSocket in
>> Smack (yet).
>>
>> - Florian
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> JDev mailing list
>> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
>> Unsubscribe: jdev-unsubscr...@jabber.org
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JDev mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
> Unsubscribe: jdev-unsubscr...@jabber.org
> _______________________________________________
>
>
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: jdev-unsubscr...@jabber.org
_______________________________________________
