Hello to all,
I had an idea to built an instant messaging application like WhatsApp.
My research had oriented me to xmpp protocol.
But this night I was having a discussion with a mate and he seemed to warn
me to use nodeJs instead of Xmpp protocol.
He was not able to explain to me the main
Hi Kwaye,
Welcome to the list.
NodeJS is a runtime that allows you to run Javascript code on a server. XMPP is
a protocol that allows you to send messages between entities on a network. So
these 2 do not compare. You can build an XMPP endpoint using NodeJS if you
want. There is an
On 17 Dec 2014, at 08:18, Cramer, E.R. (Eelco) eelco.cra...@tno.nl wrote:
Maybe you can find some relevant information in the answers on this
stackoverflow question that seems to reflect your question quite well!
Hi Cramer,
Does that mean either I use NodeJs-Xmpp or NodeJs-SocketIO ?
Thanks for the link especialy node-xmpp-server and node-xmpp-client.
2014-12-17 9:28 GMT+01:00 Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com:
On 17 Dec 2014, at 08:18, Cramer, E.R. (Eelco) eelco.cra...@tno.nl
wrote:
Maybe you can
Further to the other comment, you suggested that implementing your own
system, designed from scratch, would be easier than implementing a system
which adheres to XMPP. This is absolutely correct.
XMPP is not a trivial protocol to implement. It's possible to build
something that will work to some
I have doubt. In every link, the approach is browser base. And what about a
native programming language, Java ?
I do understand there are librairies that can be used to simplify things.
But before using one of them I wish to understand how it works.
Thanks for you comments.
2014-12-17 9:37
On 17 Dec 2014, at 09:36, kwaye kant gabrielkw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Cramer,
Does that mean either I use NodeJs-Xmpp or NodeJs-SocketIO ?
You can use whatever you want off-course :-)
If you want to use javascript on the server: use NodeJS. If you prefer python,
ruby, Java, C, erlang or
Thanks Cramer,
So I can not implement the node-xmpp-server and try to connect to with a
Java code line. Because the node-xmpp-server does not expose its services
to consume as a webservice. I think I can understand from now why my mate
couldn't argue a lot :)
Let me have a look on the ready-to-go
On 8 Dec 2014, at 10:09, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
4) Accept http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/namespace-delegation.html
as Experimental?
Dave and Fippo +1, Lance, Kev and Matt to vote onlist
I have a few quibbles here, but don’t see a reason to block publication.
5) Accept
On 17 Dec 2014, at 09:06, kwaye kant gabrielkw...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Cramer,
So I can not implement the node-xmpp-server and try to connect to with a Java
code line. Because the node-xmpp-server does not expose its services to
consume as a webservice. I think I can understand from now
On 16 Dec 2014, at 18:02, Goffi go...@goffi.org wrote:
I'm curious to see some other opinions on this subject.
For what it’s worth, having implemented ACL ‘stuff’ in an XMPP server, and
seeing how this has grown over the years, I think standardising this with a
global framework would be
On 17 December 2014 at 05:15, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
While your OP implies that “we” (presumedly “the community”) should take a
step back and consider model and terminology issues, in your latest
comments, it seems more that you want the authors to adopt a this model and
On Dec 17, 2014, at 3:52 AM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
On 17 December 2014 at 05:15, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com
mailto:kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
While your OP implies that “we” (presumedly “the community”) should take a
step back and consider model and
On 2014-12-17 14:24, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
[..]
It seems you are holding this ProtoXEP hostage for a general discussion
and possibly more (“a better system”?).
Hi,
I haven't fully digested all words in this thread. However, I think I
understand the general idea of the arguments being made by
On 17 December 2014 at 13:24, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
On Dec 17, 2014, at 3:52 AM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
On 17 December 2014 at 05:15, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com
wrote:
While your OP implies that “we” (presumedly “the community”) should take
Wow, I wasn't expecting this going in such a long thread.
On 16/12/2014 19:24, Dave Cridland wrote:
That's actually what I'm trying to avoid; we currently have lots of
fractional solutions, and no real standard.
Trying to do thing in a too generic way resolving all potential use
cases can
On 17/12/2014 15:53, Dave Cridland wrote:
It's the only tool I have to prevent this becoming a XEP prior to the
discussion.
The XEPs was submitted months ago (first mention on standard@ in may !),
we could have this discussion before.
What we have, currently, is a proposal for a XEP
On 05-12-14 11:24, Goffi wrote:
Hi,
Is there any update on this ? Actually the situation is not really good
today:
some client encode XML in OTR, other don't, there is no way to advertise OTR
support with discovery and there is an OTR specific advertisement way (with
whitespace-tagged
I’m glad this thread seems now to be focused more Dave’s concerns with the
ProtoXEP itself and how the authors might cure these concerns than discussions
of general XMPP access control issues. I’m going to try focus all my comments
on the ProtoXEP itself, your specific concerns of it, and what
On 17/12/2014 18:06, Dave Cridland wrote:
OK, I entirely forgot about that. And in fairness, I think Section 6 is
reasonable; I think Sections 4 and 5 are the problem.
Ok, it become more precise, I'll work on it
This document is not about building an external PEP service; this
document - or
On 17/12/2014 18:10, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
I’m glad this thread seems now to be focused more Dave’s concerns with the
ProtoXEP itself and how the authors might cure these concerns than discussions
of general XMPP access control issues. I’m going to try focus all my comments
on the ProtoXEP
- we (developers of Salut à Toi, http://www.salut-a-toi.org) an a few
other projects (namely Movim http://movim.eu, Jappix http://www.jappix.org)
or developers (notabily Sergey Dobrov is working on these issues too) are
working on an XMPP based decentralized (micro)blogging platforms.
On 17/12/2014 22:20, Simon Tennant wrote:
- we (developers of Salut à Toi, http://www.salut-a-toi.org) an a
few other projects (namely Movim http://movim.eu, Jappix
http://www.jappix.org) or developers (notabily Sergey Dobrov is
working on these issues too) are working on an XMPP
Not XEP-0277 but most pubsub clients should be able to use it at a very
basic level. There are many bits that are 'extra' however. I'd like to see
Buddycloud being as compatable as possible with 'standard' XMPP with its
own sugar.
On 17 Dec 2014 23:05, Goffi go...@goffi.org wrote:
On 17/12/2014
24 matches
Mail list logo
