Hi Fabio,
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Fabio Forno <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > It seems an excellent job for starting talking about XMPP & Cloud > Computing (indeed just peeked inside the use cases too see scope fo > the XEP), and I've two considerations to start: Thanks for the comments. I'm Joshua Shinavier, coauthor of Linked Process. > - is a dedicated namespace with its verbs the correct approach for > these things? why not building it at the top of IO-DATA for example > (I'm always in favor to reuse what is existing)? Good question. For one thing, we designed and implemented most of Linked Process before we were aware of IO Data, but it's not too late to consider re-engineering the specification to build upon an existing XMPP extension, if it improves interoperability. That being said, I'm not sure that IO Data is an appropriate basis for Linked Process. Marko may or may not agree (and see Peter Neubauer's response a moment ago), but the commands we use in Linked Process are not particularly Ad-Hoc. There are a fixed set of commands with very specific syntax which does not change from service provider to service provider and which does not need to be discoverable: participating clients should know a priori how to interact with other Linked Process clients. On the other hand, Jabber-RPC might actually be appropriate for Linked Process. As far as I can tell, building upon Jabber-RPC might have relatively little impact on our spec apart from the formatting of our IQ stanzas, as we do not have a need for the passing of complex data types which motivates IO Data. We will look into this possibility more closely and carefully. > - is the XSF the correct place where to standardize these kind of > applications? Well, I hope so! If there's a more appropriate place to discuss our spec, please let us know. Best regards, Joshua Shinavier I try to make myself more clear, since this in feature > it will be a gray area with more and more non-chat xmpp applications. > In order to standardize non-chat applications the XFS would need > members, and a council, having experts in the specific application > domain. I don't think that in the present and near future we will have > all these skills. However such contributions are very useful since > they give precious feedback for the infrastructure and even if the > council doesn't decide to accept them as XEPs I think that we could > provide some official space for discussion (e.g. more mailing lists? > ;) ) > > -- > Fabio Forno, > Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com > jabber id: [email protected] >
