5 ms·
The problem with XMPP is that it requires several open ports (5222, 5223, 5269, 5298, 8010) on the client, on the technical and practical standpoint the reason
by jjuliano 13y ago
The problem with XMPP is that it requires several open ports (5222, 5223, 5269, 5298, 8010) on the client, on the technical and practical standpoint the reason why XMPP is unpopular to big players because many businesses won't be bothered to open their ports, now if you are a solutions provider creating software for XMPP solutions for those companies, the most viable solution is to use BOSH to direct XMPP traffic to port 80, but there's another big problem, the only available BOSH library is a GPL BOSH library that you would license in order for you to not to ship your software along with it's source-code. Now if you can do the same thing over HTTP 1.1 stream, why bother with XMPP?
- BarkMore 13y ago* The problem with XMPP is that it requires several open ports (5222, 5223, 5269, 5298, 8010) on the client.* XMPP does not require any open ports on a client.
- jjuliano 13y agoOn the server, I mean. source: I'm an ex-cofounder of a now very successful syncing solution startup who uses XMPP and I wrote the initial server and client code.
- mh- 13y agoI have no idea where you got the idea about binding all (any) of those listening ports on the client, but that is incorrect. anecdotally: % lsof -i4 -T s COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE imagent 158 mh 6u IPv4 0x2969ca78b2e9b6bb 0t0 TCP mac:52812->pb-in-f125.1e100.net:5223 (ESTABLISHED) authoritatively: http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/SRV_Records#Ports http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/SRV_Records#Ports
- jjuliano 13y ago* On the server.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Zash 13y agoWhy not? The same applies to running an HTTP or email server, which many businesses do.