4 ms·
FWIW, I've had a different experience with XMPP. Take for example XMPP Multi-User Chat (http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep
by clemesha 18y ago
FWIW, I've had a different experience with XMPP. Take for example XMPP Multi-User Chat (http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html) - which outlines a rich set of interactions between occupants of a room - something I'm really glad someone else engineered for me. Plus, take a look at the XML stanzas (in the examples here: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html) you are sending to the server, they're really not that big or complicated. Lastly, with BOSH (http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0124.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0124.html) and incredible XMPP Javascript client libs like Strophe (http://code.stanziq.com/strophe/ http://code.stanziq.com/strophe/), the possibilities are pretty exciting for web apps.
- axod 18y agoA quick skim of the Multi-User Chat though... Firstly, it's 9 years old :/ why is everyone still not using it? Secondly, you can immediately tell it's ridiculously over-engineered. <field var='muc#roominfo_occupants' label='Number of occupants'> <value>3</value> </field> Sorry, but you can't really look at that protocol and say it's not ugly and verbose beyond reason. The number of occupants in a room is surely used enough to deserve an encoding of less than 75 characters to specify a number.
- jay_kyburz 18y agoIsn't that the whole problem with XML