On 2013-12-04 12:00, Alexander Holler wrote: > Am 04.12.2013 09:52, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 12/3/13 5:02 PM, Alexander Holler wrote: >>> Am 03.12.2013 23:55, schrieb Solomon Peachy: >>>> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:03:27PM +0100, Alexander Holler >>>> wrote: >>> >>>>> So you think it is an elegant way that if a machine wants to >>>>> send 10 binary bytes to another machine, it is ok to put them >>>>> into mime64, pack that into XML, authorize and authenticate >>>>> with an XMPP-server. doing the necessary presence stuff to >>>>> finally send out a message or iq-stanza? >>>> >>>> It sounds like your objection is to the use of XMPP more so than >>>> its use of XML. If you don't want (or need) XMPP's feature set >>>> (discoverability, authentication, presence, security, etc) then >>>> why would you use it to begin with? If you do need that feature >>>> set, then you're going to have to deal with the complexity those >>>> features necessarily entail. >>> >>> In fact I like XMPP, mostly because it's an open standard and it >>> got many concepts right and worked out (specified) well. What I >>> don't like about XMPP is the XML part and the need for TCP but one >>> can't have everything. >> >> It sounds like you might want something like stanza.io with WebSocket >> or BOSH. As a client-side API, neither XML nor TCP is absolutely >> necessary these days. > > And it never was. I always could add another layer to get rid of the > stuff below.
Alternatively, it makes total sense to use a different protocol on PANs and/or LANs and then bridge it to XMPP for WAN transport. For example, Peter Waher is working on bridging MQTT and XMPP, and MQTT also has a special profile for sensor networks based on non-TCP/IP settings, like Zigbee. -- ralphm
