[xmpp] presence stanzas versus pubsub
Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 13 September 2010 14:17 UTC
Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E663A69E2 for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03fTdIn8QZQQ for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5DE3A69D3 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so5464622qyk.10 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.52.3 with SMTP id f3mr2975274qcg.230.1284387502371; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.220.71 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:18:22 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikJNNhvmAC1d6w7b-W+q5hGJKoqz-+1aSaLdmxO@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: xmpp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [xmpp] presence stanzas versus pubsub
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp>
List-Post: <mailto:xmpp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:17:58 -0000
Hi, let me a question: If XMPP would be written right now from scratch and there were *no* implementation yet, would you chose pubsub mechanism (XEP-060) rather than presence stanzas in order to deliver basic presence status? For example, avatar (XEP-0084) uses pubsub. AFAIK pubsub offers some advantages: - Filtering capability. - Bandwith saving (just notify the requested information to watchers). - Very extensible (by creating new event types). However simple presence stanzas mechanism also has some advantages: - Direct presence deliver to a specific contact. - It seems easier to implement. Thanks for any comment. Best regards. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
- [xmpp] presence stanzas versus pubsub Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [xmpp] presence stanzas versus pubsub Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [xmpp] presence stanzas versus pubsub Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [xmpp] presence stanzas versus pubsub Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [xmpp] presence stanzas versus pubsub Iñaki Baz Castillo