On 24 September 2014 16:38, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/24/14, 9:34 AM, Hund, Johannes wrote: >> >> Wow, finally some more „exotic” M2M use cases. Sounds interesting your >> project! >> >> In terms of message load I could think tigase might be also be worth a >> look – it has downsides on configurability and extensibility from what >> I’ve heard though. >> >> I see that certain pattern, and maybe it would be good to have a Matrix >> of the brokers with some infos like scalability in terms of user count , >> scalability in terms of message load on the other column, clustering, >> ease of configuration, code base maturity, etc. >> >> Or maybe just extend the present on xmpp.org in terms of ‘”primary >> design goals”. >> >> Would you think that to be senseful or just me asking for a flamewar? > > > Mostly just asking for a flamewar. It is difficult to sort truth from fancy > (or marketing claims). It is also difficult to find people who will keep the > information objective and up to date.
Agreed. For example, there is already such a matrix on Wikipedia. It's certainly based more on marketing claims than the truth. As a result I stay well away from it (which means Prosody often looks worse than it is compared to the other implementations, but... principles!). To maintain an accurate and objective matrix I think the best solution would involve automated testing (which is also liable to be incorrect of course, but it could be improved over time - and generally bugs would affect all server implentations equally). Such an effort would not be a trivial undertaking, and I don't think it would be worth it. Regards, Matthew
