----- "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Daniel Henninger wrote: > > >>> Anyway, am I reading this right as resources seem to be the way > >>> to go, even if it might require some folk to rethink how they're > >>> using/referencing components? > >> Yes, I think XEP-0225 will require a significant rethink of > >> component handling in certain implementations. But the idea is > that > >> the rethink will be worth the effort since the new approach will > be > >> more flexible etc. So so we hope. :) > > > > Indeed! I'm pleased to see we're able to rethink some things with > > transports now that they're starting to branch out from more than > > just IM gateways. Are you planning on doing a draft about these > > concepts that I should keep an eye out for? ;D > > What do you mean by "transports"? If you mean "external component" > then > yes we're thinking beyond IM gateways, but then again we've been > doing > that for years (MUC, pubsub, user directories, etc.). I've never > liked > the term "transport" (too vague), which is why I started calling them > "gateways" years ago...
I must admit that I kind of alternate the names. Generally they all mean the same thing to me. lol Though I did make a distinction between them in the IM Gateway plugin. The gateway being the entire mechanism that's handling the interaction an XMPP session and any of the individual legacy protocols, and a transport being an implementation of one of the protocols. *shrug* It's not a particularly useful distinction. I kind of like component in general, just haven't trained myself to stick to a single phrase. Daniel
