3 ms·
And yes, I absolutely realize that the protocol had flaws, was overly verbose, the base spec required a continuous connection which is hard/impossible on mobile
by AceJohnny2 10y ago
And yes, I absolutely realize that the protocol had flaws, was overly verbose, the base spec required a continuous connection which is hard/impossible on mobile networks, its extensibility meant that clients could end up with little common compatibility, etc etc... But still.
- SamWhited 10y agoA continuous connection is actually desirable on mobile networks to save battery; your phone can turn the radio on to a power saving mode if you use a single TCP connection and no traffic is being sent and only wake it up again when it gets a paging message alerting it that there is new data to be sent down over the TCP connection. However, if you use something that requires multiple connections (eg. to poll and see if new data is available), you will have to put the radio into full power mode every time you poll to check if there's new data.
- AceJohnny2 10y agoVery tangential: which server do you personally use Conversations with, and does it have gateways to other networks?
- cortesoft 10y agoJabber is still around and works, there is nothing that stops you from using it. However, clearly people prefer to use other systems, such as Whatsapp. They offered something different (and simple) enough that it enticed people to use it, and so they have the users. It would appear that people just don't care enough about interoperability to switch to something else.
- efaref 10y agoThe protocol is an absolute nightmare to work with, even when you're only using it for your own internal systems and so control everything that's involved. I heard that WhatsApp stopped using it long ago, and if so, that wouldn't surprise me.
- SamWhited 10y agoThis is untrue; WhatsApp still uses a profile of XMPP with a custom compression layer.
- erlehmann_ 10y agoPlease elaborate on what exactly you dislike about XMPP.