Pavel Simerda wrote:
Piggybacking is the ability to have more than one validated
combination of 'from' and 'to' on single XML stream. There was no
preference of A over B originally, 0.9 streams did not have from/to
attributes iirc.
Yes, that's only what the name suggests.... and from/to was something I
first ask about... it actually seems it brings more trouble that it
saves... or not?
Piggybacking is going to be necessary in the future, considering a limit
on simultaneous connections as described in 0205.
Keeping this as an optional feature (I believe that is a near
consensus)
> will further simplify the most basic implementations.
The last consensus I know of was to make passive support a MUST even:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-June/015673.html
Did I miss something?
I was referring to what I heard at jdev@ some time ago, ask Peter for
details (you'll have more after the council). The mail seems too old to
me.
S2S topics are not very frequent.
AFAIK (and it's also what I understood from stpeter) backwords
compatibility is now being solved by *compatibility notes* in the RFC
and not by treating compatibility hacks as eternal truth :).
Piggybacking is not a hack. Would you please read Robs summary on s2s
issues:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/xmppwg/2004-February/002008.html
It has a whole section on why piggybacking and backward compability
is necessary.
philipp,
wondering about a "piggybacking sucks" note on his rfc3920bis-01 copy
