Hi,
On Oct 7, 2008, at 1:00 PM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:53:51 +0100
Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 5, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
Please look into real world, not idealistic.
Servers have sometimes long timeouts (nobody says they can't),
don't do
any sort of pings (nobody says they must) and many people have
unstable
connections, even on ADSL, but much more on wireless, especially
when moving aroud.
IMHO, "pings" are awful. I would much rather have session-reconnect
and link-level acks for stanzas. The pair should provide an even
more resiliant network than "pings" will ever do.
link-level pings, of course.
This is what you might want to do:
1) when you don't get an ack and want to retry last before
disconnection (maybe not useful at all, not sure)
This is TCP, one lost ping is enough.
2) when there are no messages for some time at all (acks are correct,
but you don't know anyway)
These pings are to be found in xep-198 together with acks, if it
didn't
change from last time I saw it.
They are there.
If this is not the case, users become confused and will start to
think Jabber is unreliable. And what more, they will rightly do so.
I agree that reliability is still a problem with the larger XMPP
network, specially small servers.
IMO it doesn't depend so much on the scale of the servers. It's
that...
The paragraph was meant for S2S connections, sorry, didn't made myself
clear.
With a small server (small in terms of users) each S2S connection has
light use, so the risk of disconnect for lack of traffic is higher
than on busy servers.
Hence, on small servers, the first message to a remote domain has a
higher change of failing (the S2S link is not up, and even if the
server buffers the message to send later, he might control the size of
such buffers).
Best regards,
--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use XMPP!
