I don't doubt it was easier to implement, and it's better to get something
working fast. But it also introduces a dependency on an xmpp server
which supports pub/sub and service discovery as well as an extra hop
of xml-stanza encoding/decoding between the xmpp server and the component.
For the purposes of federation, none of this seems necessary to me.
I would think that federation is possible with fewer network communication
steps (introduced by the component and service discovery) and less
infrastructure
dependency with something like:
1) DNS SRV records could be used for discovery.
2) TLS with cert authentication is certainly available somewhere as a library
(eg apache mina)
3) I'd have to spend some time recalling the details of xmpp
server-server connections
to be sure, but my impression is that the basic flow of an underlying
xmpp server-server connection
could be used to give stanza request/responses ids and do error
handling (xml, authentication errors)
One could even keep the mapping to the pub/sub iq stanzas and wavelet
update stanzas. An xmpp
library for server-server streams, depending on 1&2 above, would aid
in all this.
As Anthony noted, this would be more work initially. It may also not
be a good idea if there
is significant integration of xmpp operations with existing xmpp
contacts/rosters planned, which
I don't know. But for federation of wave accounts only, a standalone
wave server
(without core xmpp support) may be of interest. I'm trying to figure
out If there's enough interest
in that to warrant an implementation, and/or if there are objections
-- perhaps based on
something I'm not yet aware of.
comments/thoughts?
Scott
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Anthony Baxter<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Speaking purely for myself, using an XMPP component made
> implementation of the federation side so very very much easier. I can
> let the XMPP server handle a lot of the messy lower level stuff, like
> TLS and the like. It also slots into existing infrastructure - both
> ours, and anyone else who's running an XMPP server.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 15:27, Brian May<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 10:10:38PM -0700, Tad Glines wrote:
>>> Plus I'm sure they plan to integrate XMPP chat and gmail with wave. So chats
>>> and e-mails will appear in waves (and probably vice versa). The transition
>>> to
>>> wave will be much easier if wave users can still interact with non-wave
>>> users.
>>
>> Wave doesn't need to use XMPP to get this happening.
>>
>> e.g. see twitter support in Google Wave.
>>
>> Maybe they felt reusing an existing protocol might be better received then
>> inventing a new one from scratch?
>> --
>> Brian May <[email protected]>
>>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anthony Baxter, [email protected]
>
> >
>
--
scott
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave
Protocol" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
