Justin Karneges wrote: > On Monday 31 March 2008 9:14 am, Stephen Pendleton wrote: >> I don't see why this is silly. As it says in the BOSH XEP: [BOSH] is useful >> in situations where a device or client is unable to maintain a long-lived >> TCP connection to an XMPP server. > > Sure, but we don't need HTTP for that. I think BOSH should exist exclusively > for clients that for some reason cannot use TCP directly. If a client seeks > to work well when it cannot maintain long-lived connections, that's where > XEP-198 comes in. > > The current situation is a mess. While XEP-198 has a high XEP number, the > concept is many years old, and when it was first introduced there was little > interest and the council rejected the proposal. It didn't see the light > until seventy-four XEPs after BOSH, and during that period developers > realized that maintaining TCP connectivity can be a problem and that BOSH > solves the problem. Complete disaster. Now there is interest in promoting > HTTP as the best transport for XMPP? How in the holy hell did this > happen? :)
It didn't. :) >> In particular I have implemented a BOSH solution >> where the session reconnect is triggered by a SMS message from the server >> to the client device. This saves lots of battery compared to the >> traditional long-lived TCP XMPP solutions since the data connection is not >> active when there is no "chat" activity. > > This is a really cool idea though. That's similar to what they do in IMPS / Wireless Village. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
