On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 09:21:43PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: [.snip.] > >I understand. But SI and Jingle essentially perform the same functions, > >since they both enable negotiation. > > Yes but jingle also provides access to ICE and pseudo-tcp so it would be > helpful rather than have the entire file transfer negotiation using just > jingle if it was separated in two so that all the jingle side is doing > is negotiating a generic bytestream that can be then reused by things > like SI, to me this seems like a sensible compromise as there is no real > benefit that I can see of doing the whole thing in jingle as its just > duplicating effort, whereas creating a new bytestream method is > complimentory, anyone else think its a good idea?
I generally thought that reimplementing all that with jingle is a bad idea. And I as client/library author surely don't like the idea of duplicating code or functinality. I agree completly with you. Robin
