4 ms·

>> " It's trivially extensible; if you control both ends of the connection, grab a namespace and go to town." So what's the point of using xmpp at all? Why not

by axod 17y ago

>> " It's trivially extensible; if you control both ends of the connection, grab a namespace and go to town." So what's the point of using xmpp at all? Why not just use a specific protocol geared to your use case? Using your own simple protocol is also trivially extensible. And human readable. Writing a parser for a json like syntax is also trivial - contrast this with an xml parser which is not trivial.

jerf 17y ago
Go ahead and try it, and you'll find out why. Why not use a better protocol to send email? Why are we still using HTTP to send web traffic, even though we've really gotten beyond what it is good at? Why am I FTP-ing a file even as we speak? You're basically asking why utopia doesn't exist. You won't like the answers, so I'm not going to bother with them. All I can say is: Try it. See how far you get. I'm not kidding. This isn't just a rhetorical device. Go out and try to define your own protocol. See how many people rush over to join in. Maybe you'll pull off an Atom, but the odds are long. (In fact, I do use my own protocol when I control both endpoints, even in a use case that looks a lot like XMPP, and in fact it is JSON based. The project I am working on right now has that as its backbone. But I know the limits of that approach. Bear that in mind as you try to understand where I'm coming from.)
- axod 17y ago
  Those protocols took off (HTTP/Email/etc). The network effect came into play. XMPP never really took off (Big surprise). Using it for new, unconnected systems, is idiocy IMHO. There are probably more XMPP extension specifications than there are people using XMPP. I agree, launching new protocols is hard. You need leverage and a network effect to get it going. I do get where you're coming from. I just think that anyone who has the choice on what protocol to use for something, and picks XMPP, is mad. Even if it has to interface to legacy systems they could use a bridge.
  - riffic 17y ago
    xmpp seems to have taken off pretty decently from what i've seen so far (rfc process, ietf backing, adoption by google et al)
    - axod 17y ago
      A few big users (Google)... isn't the same as widespread adoption. Google could easily switch protocols and provide a legacy xmpp bridge tomorrow if they chose to.
      - riffic 17y ago
        This is a protocol which has quite a few rfc's associated with it (3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, 4622, 4854, 4979, 5437), as well as being proposed as an official internet protocol standard on the rfc-editor site. It isn't going away any time soon, despite your wishes otherwise.
        axod 17y ago
        RFCs and other documents do not mean it's needed or wanted - "Make something people want". I'm sure it will limp on for years, after all, it's limped on for 10 years so far without real widespread adoption.
        riffic 17y ago
        whatever, I presented the evidence that it is on a standards track, the IETF seems to like it, and it is a better protocol than any of the alternatives. I'm sure it is possible that one can come along one day to supplant it, but for the meantime it is the best we have and it would be nice if people would adopt a standard rather than whine about it not being done in their way. in fact some amazing things might be possible if the service providers adopted it rather than maintain their proprietary walled gardens. I would love to be able to use my google talk account to initiate a jingle session with users on AIM/MSN/Yahoo/Facebok/etc.

by axod 17y ago

jerf 17y ago

Go ahead and try it, and you'll find out why. Why not use a better protocol to send email? Why are we still using HTTP to send web traffic, even though we've really gotten beyond what it is good at? Why am I FTP-ing a file even as we speak? You're basically asking why utopia doesn't exist. You won't like the answers, so I'm not going to bother with them. All I can say is: Try it. See how far you get. I'm not kidding. This isn't just a rhetorical device. Go out and try to define your own protocol. See how many people rush over to join in. Maybe you'll pull off an Atom, but the odds are long. (In fact, I do use my own protocol when I control both endpoints, even in a use case that looks a lot like XMPP, and in fact it is JSON based. The project I am working on right now has that as its backbone. But I know the limits of that approach. Bear that in mind as you try to understand where I'm coming from.)

axod 17y ago
Those protocols took off (HTTP/Email/etc). The network effect came into play. XMPP never really took off (Big surprise). Using it for new, unconnected systems, is idiocy IMHO. There are probably more XMPP extension specifications than there are people using XMPP. I agree, launching new protocols is hard. You need leverage and a network effect to get it going. I do get where you're coming from. I just think that anyone who has the choice on what protocol to use for something, and picks XMPP, is mad. Even if it has to interface to legacy systems they could use a bridge.
- riffic 17y ago
  xmpp seems to have taken off pretty decently from what i've seen so far (rfc process, ietf backing, adoption by google et al)
  - axod 17y ago
    A few big users (Google)... isn't the same as widespread adoption. Google could easily switch protocols and provide a legacy xmpp bridge tomorrow if they chose to.
    - riffic 17y ago
      This is a protocol which has quite a few rfc's associated with it (3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, 4622, 4854, 4979, 5437), as well as being proposed as an official internet protocol standard on the rfc-editor site. It isn't going away any time soon, despite your wishes otherwise.
      - axod 17y ago
        RFCs and other documents do not mean it's needed or wanted - "Make something people want". I'm sure it will limp on for years, after all, it's limped on for 10 years so far without real widespread adoption.
        riffic 17y ago
        whatever, I presented the evidence that it is on a standards track, the IETF seems to like it, and it is a better protocol than any of the alternatives. I'm sure it is possible that one can come along one day to supplant it, but for the meantime it is the best we have and it would be nice if people would adopt a standard rather than whine about it not being done in their way. in fact some amazing things might be possible if the service providers adopted it rather than maintain their proprietary walled gardens. I would love to be able to use my google talk account to initiate a jingle session with users on AIM/MSN/Yahoo/Facebok/etc.