On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 04:35:47PM -0700, Kurt D. Starsinic wrote:
> > appropriate as it is to avoid them when not.
> >
> > The judgement's fairly easy here, but sometimes requires a far-sighted
> > crystal ball.
>
> Sorry for taking so long to chime in.
>
> From what I've read, Net::Jabber is still most appropriate. Jabber
> _is_ good for many things, but you're still talking about dealing with
> network protocols, no? Apache is a top-level namespace, but it's rife
No, as I tried to make clear in my reply to Philip
(http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/modules/2001-09/msg00374.html).
Jabber is not just a network protocol. There are two main cornerstones
that make Jabber what it is - the protocol, which could arguably seen
as a 'meta-'protocol (designed with extensibility from the outset),
and the server architecture, within which hubs (routers), components
(satellite services) and clients (connector stubs) interoperate and
can be used to build all sorts of solutions.
Jabber is a development platform much more than it is an IM protocol.
Clearly, because the first major application that Jabber was used for,
and arguably the most public, was IM interoperability. But if you look
at the development efforts and directions in the community (JECL,
Jabber-RPC, Jabelin, to name but a few), it becomes clear that any
firm coupling of Jabber and IM, or even the view that Jabber is 'just'
a protocol, is missing the point, and doing an injustice to Jabber.
Kind regards
DJ
http://www.pipetree.com/jabber/
