On czw, 2010-08-26 at 10:37 +0200, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
This is the case with jabberd2.
Not really, it still has the bugs it had years ago that made me move to
ejabberd. And ejabberd still has the bugs that made me move to Prosody :(.
Every software have bugs.
There are just bugs that
On czw, 2010-08-26 at 10:16 -0400, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
I agree, PEP support isn't so great on the major server platforms. For
example Openfire's implementation has a memory leak. I think PEP is
one differentiating factor for XMPP. It would be nice to have solid,
dependable support in all
On czw, 2010-08-26 at 12:35 -0400, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
Also, if ejabberd doesn't want to provide proper PEP support then you
should just remove it as a listed feature. A missing feature is better
than a broken one.
This may be a design flaw of the JEP/XEP process itself.
XEPs are not
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Tomasz Sterna to...@xiaoka.com wrote:
On czw, 2010-08-26 at 12:35 -0400, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
Also, if ejabberd doesn't want to provide proper PEP support then you
should just remove it as a listed feature. A missing feature is better
than a broken one.
-Original Message-
From: jdev-boun...@jabber.org [mailto:jdev-boun...@jabber.org] On Behalf Of
Tomasz Sterna
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 9:04 AM
To: Jabber/XMPP software development list
Subject: Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?
One may wonder whether low penetration of PEP
Hi Evgeniy,
noone cares about implementations
feedback anymore, it is much more funny to flame implementation wars instead
of make all implementations happy.
IMO, the primary goal of the XSF (and any XMPP software project) is
making XMPP users happy. Unable to implement/scale protocols means
30.08.2010 23:06, Remko Tronçon wrote:
Hi Evgeniy,
Hello :)
IMO, the primary goal of the XSF (and any XMPP software project) is
making XMPP users happy. Unable to implement/scale protocols means bad
experiences, means unhappy users, so we *definitely* care about
implementation feedback.
-Original Message-
From: jdev-boun...@jabber.org [mailto:jdev-boun...@jabber.org] On Behalf Of
Mathias Ertl
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 11:49 AM
To: jdev@jabber.org
Subject: Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?
To be fair, Stephen Pendleton claimed earlier in this thread
27.08.2010 02:47, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu Aug 26 15:41:29 2010, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
Lots of bugs in PEP server implementations are because the XEP itself
is written poorly. It doesn't scale: the idea of keeping resources
and features of every user from every server on the planet is
On Fri Aug 27 10:00:07 2010, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
27.08.2010 02:47, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu Aug 26 15:41:29 2010, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
Lots of bugs in PEP server implementations are because the XEP
itself
is written poorly. It doesn't scale: the idea of keeping resources
and
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Evgeniy Khramtsov xramt...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
3) for S2S users a server sends PEP message blindly to bare JID.
snip
Doesn't this cause issues for any user on a standard server? It seems
to me that this is going to be a potentially major issue for e.g.
27.08.2010 23:01, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Evgeniy Khramtsovxramt...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
3) for S2S users a server sends PEP message blindly to bare JID.
snip
Doesn't this cause issues for any user on a standard server? It seems
to me that this is going
XEP doesn't forbid such behaviour, as I posted above.
Hmm, we need to make it explicit that this is forbidden then. The
whole reason that PEP exists was to avoid spamming of extended
presence.
Thanks for pointing out that this wasn't 100% clear in the spec.
cheers,
Remko
2010/8/27 Remko Tronçon re...@el-tramo.be:
XEP doesn't forbid such behaviour, as I posted above.
Hmm, we need to make it explicit that this is forbidden then. The
whole reason that PEP exists was to avoid spamming of extended
presence.
Thanks for pointing out that this wasn't 100% clear in
27.08.2010 23:14, Remko Tronçon wrote:
XEP doesn't forbid such behaviour, as I posted above.
Hmm, we need to make it explicit that this is forbidden then. The
whole reason that PEP exists was to avoid spamming of extended
presence.
Thanks for pointing out that this wasn't 100% clear in
On 27 August 2010 16:12, Evgeniy Khramtsov xramt...@gmail.com wrote:
27.08.2010 23:14, Remko Tronçon wrote:
XEP doesn't forbid such behaviour, as I posted above.
Hmm, we need to make it explicit that this is forbidden then. The
whole reason that PEP exists was to avoid spamming of extended
28.08.2010 01:18, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 27 August 2010 16:12, Evgeniy Khramtsovxramt...@gmail.com 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
On 08/27/2010 05:18 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
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 only cries I've heard that PEP doesn't scale seem to be coming
from folk
Hi Mathias,
On 27 August 2010 16:48, Mathias Ertl m...@fsinf.at wrote:
On 08/27/2010 05:18 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
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 only
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Evgeniy Khramtsov xramt...@gmail.com wrote:
28.08.2010 01:18, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 27 August 2010 16:12, Evgeniy Khramtsovxramt...@gmail.com wrote:
Good move, Remko. Now ejabberd will violate your synthetic rules for
sure.
I'm completely disappointed in
28.08.2010 02:36, Waqas Hussain wrote:
Let's see.. 1M PEP nodes, with say.. 1K subscribers each. And server2
has max 2M resources.
On top, let's assume 10K different client configurations (i.e., 10K
caps hashes).
Here's what it might look like in Prosody:
1. A table of strings with all JIDs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Am 27.08.2010 um 17:48 schrieb Mathias Ertl:
To be fair, Stephen Pendleton claimed earlier in this thread there is a
memory leak in Openfire. Jonathan Schleifer claimed that PEP is not
supported in jabberd1 and jabberd2, the latter still
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Am 27.08.2010 um 18:58 schrieb Evgeniy Khramtsov:
Of course, I'm not in a very comfortable position, because it is not so
simple to count traffic, but nowadays I can't say if the overhead will be
really great because of TLS-compressed links
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Am 10.08.2010 um 19:05 schrieb Tomasz Sterna:
Dnia 2010-07-10, sob o godzinie 22:33 -0700, Matt Mason pisze:
It could be that no updates = stability!
This is the case with jabberd2.
It reached stability and I do not touch it unless I have
On Thu Aug 26 09:37:00 2010, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Also, stability in XMPP would only be possible if there would be
stability in the protocol ;). A lot changed in the past years.
Well, that's certainly true. Even XEPs that have been defined for
years are only just being implemented, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Am 26.08.2010 um 11:04 schrieb Dave Cridland:
Servers not implementing these XEPs, and/or not updating their
implementations as we learn more about the operational aspects, are going to
be left behind to at least some degree.
Which is
-Original Message-
From: jdev-boun...@jabber.org [mailto:jdev-boun...@jabber.org] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Schleifer
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 5:25 AM
To: Jabber/XMPP software development list
Subject: Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?
Which is already true for jabberd1
27.08.2010 00:16, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
I agree, PEP support isn't so great on the major server platforms. For
example Openfire's implementation has a memory leak. I think PEP is one
differentiating factor for XMPP. It would be nice to have solid, dependable
support in all the major platforms
Lots of bugs in PEP server implementations are because the XEP itself is
written poorly. It doesn't scale: the idea of keeping resources and
features of every user from every server on the planet is completely
insane. Don't be surprised if you see memory leaks - they are by design :)
Not
On Thu Aug 26 15:41:29 2010, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
27.08.2010 00:16, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
I agree, PEP support isn't so great on the major server platforms.
For
example Openfire's implementation has a memory leak. I think PEP
is one
differentiating factor for XMPP. It would be nice to
Hi,
As you can see, people Russian Federation, Czech Republic and Ukraine use
Jabber/XMPP widely.
As a resident of Russia, I can confirm that many large projects started own
IM servers based on XMPP (for example: yandex.ru, qip.ru/rbc.ru,
vkontakte.ru/vk.com etc). Users just using that services
Dnia 2010-07-10, sob o godzinie 22:33 -0700, Matt Mason pisze:
It could be that no updates = stability!
This is the case with jabberd2.
It reached stability and I do not touch it unless I have to.
It is just steadily pumping packets in the background. :-)
--
Tomasz Sterna
Instant Messaging
- The following is an automated response
- to your message generated on behalf of herve.fayo...@criticalpath.net
Hi,
Please note I'm out of work until Monday August 30th, 2010.
Thank you
-- HF
___
JDev mailing list
Forum:
**check out this http://www.gaodeng.me/?p=3
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 July 2010 22:39, Yves Goergen nospam.l...@unclassified.de wrote:
Hi there,
Today I noticed that there hasn't been an update to the Openfire Jabber
server in more than
On 2010-07-14 19:08, Gao Deng wrote:
**check out this http://www.gaodeng.me/?p=3
Not to nitpick, but putting them both on the same scale is more
illustrative:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=xmpp,jabber
~Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 7/12/10 1:58 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Mon Jul 12 19:43:00 2010, Bill de hÓra wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:03 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
A well defined mobile XMPP profile seems like a good idea, instead of
grab bagging various XEPs and trying them out. Once there was an optimal
On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:43 AM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
It's not that XML is power hungry (streaming parses do ok cpu wise),
it's that XMPP/XML eats bandwidth and the chatiness (no pun intended) of
XMPP when people aren't saying anything will tend to keep to impact the
phone radio (and thus the
On 7/13/10 2:04 PM, Jason Fritcher wrote:
On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:43 AM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
It's not that XML is power hungry (streaming parses do ok cpu
wise), it's that XMPP/XML eats bandwidth and the chatiness (no pun
intended) of XMPP when people aren't saying anything will tend to
keep
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 14:06 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 7/13/10 2:04 PM, Jason Fritcher wrote:
On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:43 AM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
It's not that XML is power hungry (streaming parses do ok cpu
wise), it's that XMPP/XML eats bandwidth and the chatiness (no pun
On 7/13/10 2:26 PM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 14:06 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 7/13/10 2:04 PM, Jason Fritcher wrote:
On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:43 AM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
It's not that XML is power hungry (streaming parses do ok cpu
wise), it's that XMPP/XML eats
On Sat Jul 10 22:39:23 2010, Yves Goergen wrote:
Sometime in the last decade I saw a more or less great momentum
towards
open IM standards, with Google Talk and GMX/web.de introducing XMPP
services or Apple iChat supporting the protocol. Recently, Facebook
also
joined the club (without s2s
My take: http://www.google.fr/trends?q=xmpp
No XMPP ain't dyin'... ;-)
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:03, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
On Sat Jul 10 22:39:23 2010, Yves Goergen wrote:
Sometime in the last decade I saw a more or less great momentum towards
open IM standards, with Google
--
From: Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 12:54 AM
To: Jabber/XMPP software development list jdev@jabber.org
Subject: Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?
On 10 July 2010 22:39, Yves Goergen nospam.l...@unclassified.de
--
From: Jonathan Dickinson jonat...@dickinsons.co.za
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:37 PM
To: Jabber/XMPP software development list jdev@jabber.org
Subject: Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP
wrote:
--
From: Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 12:54 AM
To: Jabber/XMPP software development list jdev@jabber.org
Subject: Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?
On 10 July 2010 22:39, Yves Goergen nospam.l
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:03 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
5) In terms of Google specifically - Google is a large, broad-based,
company with a momentum all of its own. Very much like Microsoft,
it's important to remain objective when looking at what they're
doing. So while Google have
On Mon Jul 12 19:43:00 2010, Bill de hÓra wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:03 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
5) In terms of Google specifically - Google is a large,
broad-based,
company with a momentum all of its own. Very much like Microsoft,
it's important to remain objective when looking
On Jul 10, 2010, at 10:33 PM, Matt Mason wrote:
It could be that no updates = stability!
I know for me, the more often something demands I update, the less likely I am
to recommend it to anyone.
--
Neil Stevens - n...@hakubi.us
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Yves Goergen
nospam.l...@unclassified.de wrote:
Today I noticed that there hasn't been an update to the Openfire Jabber
server in more than 14 months, where 2007 and 2008 have been very active
years. There's still a lot of open issues in the project. In the
On 10 July 2010 22:39, Yves Goergen nospam.l...@unclassified.de wrote:
Hi there,
Today I noticed that there hasn't been an update to the Openfire Jabber
server in more than 14 months, where 2007 and 2008 have been very active
years. There's still a lot of open issues in the project. In the
On 7/10/10 4:54 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 10 July 2010 22:39, Yves Goergen nospam.l...@unclassified.de wrote:
Hi there,
Today I noticed that there hasn't been an update to the Openfire Jabber
server in more than 14 months, where 2007 and 2008 have been very active
years. There's still a lot
It could be that no updates = stability! I have spent the last year
developing an XMPP Server and client in a non-IM space commercially and our
group seems to find new uses for them springing up all the time. It's
honestly a difficult sell when people hear the word IM; the idea is often
52 matches
Mail list logo
