Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Evgeniy Khramtsov
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

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Dave Cridland
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

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Kevin Smith
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.

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Evgeniy Khramtsov
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

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Remko Tronçon
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

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Matthew Wild
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

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Evgeniy Khramtsov
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

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Matthew Wild
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

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Evgeniy Khramtsov
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

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Mathias Ertl
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

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Matthew Wild
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

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Waqas Hussain
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

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Evgeniy Khramtsov
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

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Jonathan Schleifer
-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

Re: [jdev] The future of Jabber/XMPP?

2010-08-27 Thread Jonathan Schleifer
-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