isn't the whole point of the c/s protocol that it allows to you do what you want? It is not dependent on a particular setup. I'm all for decoupling the client in the code, but also want an an agnostic application interface so you can choose how and what you want to design as a client.
Client should be able to be independent from wave server. --- On Mon, 11/4/11, Nelson Silva <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Nelson Silva <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: XMPP over websockets > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, 11 April, 2011, 14:28 > I believe WAIB should be split into > modules. If we adopted Maven as > build tool it would really make things a lot simpler. > We should have pure api modules and then default impl > packages. This > would allow anyone to contribute sample client, server, etc > > implementations which could then be integrated into WAIB. > > On 11-04-2011 14:07, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > >> On of the current things with WiaB seems to be > that the server and client are all rolled in to one. > For people wanting desktop clients, mobile clients, etc, I > think it is critical to have a well defined protocol for the > client and server to work together. > >> > >> ~Michael > > > > Couldn't possibly agree more with that! > > It would be nice if client development could be done > relatively > > independently from server development, I think both > would proceed > > faster if they wernt so tied together. > > > > -Thomas > > > >> On Apr 9, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > >> > >>> Remember there is strong pro XMPP voices > here too; > >>> http://www.process-one.net/en/blogs/article/xwave_a_tribute_to_google_wave_team/ > >>> > >>> I'm not sure who is right on a technical > sense, but there is working > >>> xmpp based federations out there, are their > any based on http? > >>> > >>> Regarding the c/s protocol - it makes somewhat > sense anyway if it was > >>> more or less the same as the server/server > one, seeing as they both > >>> basically have to exchange the same > information to keep the document > >>> in sync. > >>> > >>> As I suggested on the recent poll,however, I > think separating out the > >>> wiab webclient and using a lib for c/s > protocol would help a lot. That > >>> way , even if different choices are made for > the protocol later on, > >>> its just the lib that has to be changed. > People could thus make > >>> clients with the protocol itself abstracted > away. > >>> > >>> ~~~~~~ > >>> Reviews of anything, by anyone; > >>> www.rateoholic.co.uk > >>> Please try out my new site and give feedback > :) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 10 April 2011 00:13, Michael > MacFadden<[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> Nelson, > >>>> > >>>> There has been large debate on XMPP in > wave. The general complaint is that the protocol is to > verbose. My two cents are that one of the main points > of XMPP was a verbose XML human readable protocol with > standard extension mechanisms. However wave uses > protobufs and base64 encodes all the data in the XMPP > stanzas. The data exchanged by wave is not human > readable, xml based, or part of the XMPP standard. > That defeats the purpose of using the XMPP standard in the > first place. In my opinion this basically relegates > XMPP to just a delivery envelope, and one that adds on a lot > of overhead. > >>>> > >>>> Also XMPP's dependance on long lived TCP > connections to maintain the xml stream, there are > difficulties providing services to clients that are > frequently disconnected. For these reasons there is > talk of adding a "raw" http transfer mechanism for > federation. Until that is worked out I would hesitate > to entertain the idea of injecting XMPP in to the c/s > protocol. > >>>> > >>>> ~Michael > >>>> > >>>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Nelson Silva > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> XMPP over websockets was proposed as a > draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moffitt-xmpp-over-websocket-00) > and ejabberd now has a sample module to support it: > >>>>> > >>>>> http://blog.superfeedr.com/xmpp-over-websockets/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Wouldn't it be great to use XMPP for > both C/S and federation ? or is it too verbose ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Just wanted to share this with the > list. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Nelson > >>>> > >> > >
