Just a small comment; Facebook uses XMPP for its chat client too. Its hardly industry toxic. In chat clients at least its practically industry standard.
On 12 June 2013 12:14, Michael MacFadden <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: > A Googler once told me that XMPP was used primarily because they already > had an internal infrastructure (Gtalk) based on XMPP, they just just > wanted to reuse this infrastructure. It does have its advantages in not > having to re-invent the wheel. > > I can also say that in a few use cases, XMPP has proven to be non-feasible > due to the overhead of the protocol and it's expectation for long lived > TCP connections. > > During the wave summit, there was an overwhelming desire to remove XMPP in > favor of something more lightweight. Not much came of that. > > ~Michael > > On 6/12/13 11:09 AM, "Yuri Z" <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>AFAIK the main idea of XMPP was to re-use the auto server discovery and to >>use its secure communication. With lighter approaches - like HTTP you >>would >>need to figure out how to relate a federating user from example.com domain >>to the actual wave server that can run at sub domain wave.example.com. >> >> >>On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) < >>sten...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Joseph Gentle <jose...@gmail.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>> > I heard a story once from some developer attending a java conference. >>> > >>> > The theme was how to solve the challenges that Java faces in the next >>> > decade - and basically everyone was talking about how to make >>> > development tools scale up to work with codebases which were millions >>> > of lines long. How do we manage big projects? How well does eclipse >>> > scale? How do we refactor codebases that size? >>> > >>> > This is crazy. The right question isn't "How do we scale our tools", >>> > its "How do I write less java?". >>> > >>> > >>> I agree with you on this. The other day I was about to add half a dozen >>>new >>> settings to the config files (for the email-wave bot). I thought it >>>would >>> take 5 minutes max, something like adding lines like this: >>> >>> value = settingsManager.get(key); >>> >>> But after 20 minutes traversing the code, writing each variable many >>>times >>> in different files, with different syntaxes (camel case, underscore >>> separators, all-caps, and whatnot) throughout several code layers, I >>>still >>> hadn't managed to reach the point of code where I actually wanted my >>>bot to >>> use the damned settings. I'm all for future-proofing the design, but I >>> think that's a bit ridiculous. I don't want to imagine the fun in >>>debugging >>> federation and ot algorithms when they fail, if it's all written like >>>this. >>> >>> Ali and I half-joked about going on a killing spree to halve the amount >>>of >>> code. I'm sure no practical functionality would be lost... :-) >>> >>> -- >>> Saludos, >>> Bruno González >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com >>> http://www.stenyak.com >>> > >
