On Fri Mar 6 11:45:06 2009, Mickael Remond wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Thu Mar 5 18:19:53 2009, Mickael Remond wrote:
> > So do we all agree that either way (using jid on resume or
starting
> > stream management after bind), the XEP needs to be modified ?
> Not on this basis, no.
Ok, so we do not agree.
XEP-0198 is thus not what you need and it looks that we will need to
write our own protocol to resume sessions.
I'm missing your logic, here.
You're saying that a full jid is required to locate the node, because
you have a distributed lookup table from full jid to node, and you
don't want another lookup table.
I'm saying you don't *need* another lookup table, or at the very
least you'd only need one that varied according to the nodes in the
cluster, which, one hopes, is not very volatile.
A concrete example (although possibly not tremendously realistic):
A cluster "jabber.org" consisting of two nodes, "hermes" and "athena".
If I acquire a sm-id from a connection to hermes, then I get, for
example "hermes:asudhguilh". One from athena similar begins
"athena:". The remainder would be made up of some node-local lookup
key and a MAC, most likely.
Neither Hermes nor Athena need a complete list of sessions at any
time, they merely need a list of nodes, which one assumes rather
rashly that they already have, and a method for string representation
of these nodes. (I chose hostnames, but I imagine a real clustering
solution would use something rather more specific, like a
communications endpoint - in addition, I'd except all nodes within a
cluster to be able to verify the sm-id, but that's trivial).
This strategy allows a session to be uniquely named easily, without
additional shared state, and allows a common protocol for both C2S
and S2S sessions.
What am I missing that this doesn't solve?
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
