On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Justin Karneges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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's not about HTTP, it's about a protocol which puts boundaries to the messages. If you ever programmed in environments where the connection is unreliable, raw TCP is a nightmare because it does exactly the opposite of what you'd like: detect as soon as possible that the connection is broken and try to understand how many bytes you've been able to send. What I'd prefer for mobile clients is a TCP transport with this train of fields (xmlstanza may be empty if it's just an ack): *seqid*length*xmlstanza* (the first message upon reconnects should contain also a session id) bye -- Fabio Forno, Ph.D. Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com jabber id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
