Hi,
On Mar 28, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I've been chatting with someone off-list about mobile optimizations
and
he suggested that we might want to build in the ability to seamlessly
switch between BOSH and TCP. For example you would use the TCP binding
when you have a high volume of activity (active chat sessions with
multiple contacts, Jingle negotiation, etc.) but then go back to BOSH
when the activity level drops below some threshold.
So a few questions:
1. Is BOSH acceptable in practice for high-activity periods?
This is more a meta-reply to several posts on this thread that argue
that BOSH is more heavy (bandwidth-wise) than TCP.
Sure, you have all the HTTP headers going back and forth, and the SSL/
TLS negotiation.
But we should not assume constant pooling in our decisions. A BOSH CM
could implement a long-lived HTTP connection (like the ones used by
the Comet-style protocols) and with a short delay on response (to
accumulate stanzas), it should be pretty good. Not as good as TCP
sure, but enough to weight against the BOSH ability of keeping a XMPP
session alive in the presence of changing client IP address.
Best regards,
--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use XMPP!
