-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joshua Shinavier Sent: 09/24/2009 2:43 AM To: XMPP Standards Subject: Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Linked Process Protocol
>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. This does seem like a specialization of IO-Data to me as well. IO-Data is a bit more robust than Jabber-RPC with features like submitting/cancelling/status of jobs (which you have defined in your XEP), asynchronous error support (which you don't define), etc - all which you would probably need in a implementation!
