On Thu Apr 30 17:13:27 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
1. Who has implemented XEP-0138? Please note that the protocol must
be
implemented in at least two separate codebases (and preferably
more).
Isode have implemented this in Isode M-Link for some time, basing it
off the very similar code used (and interop-tested) in IMAP
COMPRESS=DEFLATE extension support in the M-Box product.
The code appears to work successfully against a number of
implementations we've had nothing to do with at all. These have been
mostly on C2S connections, although we do self-interop on S2S
sessions.
2. Have developers experienced any problems with the protocol as
defined
in XEP-0138? If so, please describe the problems and, if possible,
suggested solutions.
The only minor niggle is that it uses the zlib file format instead of
the marginally smaller, and more fitting, "raw" deflate blocks.
However, this doesn't represent a serious problem.
3. Is the text of XEP-0138 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples
necessary? Is the conformance language (MAY/SHOULD/MUST)
appropriate?
Have developers found the text confusing at all? Please describe any
suggestions you have for improving the text.
I found it clearly written, and had no difficulty writing an
implementation based on it which subsequently proved to interoperate
with other, independently written, implementations.
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
