Correct, it's just another configuration point. On 6/12/13 2:44 PM, "Dave" <w...@glark.co.uk> wrote:
>On 12/06/13 12:43, Michael MacFadden wrote: >> So, most people would not argue [against] XMPP as an established chat >>protocol. >> However, wave is not chat. > >Indeed. Xmpp is widely deployed for chat, but not widely deployed for >wave. Wave traffic is more noisy than simple chat, but the S2S >connections for a busy xmpp server are also pretty noisy. > >Apologies if my earlier comment appeared to imply otherwise. > >We're using xmpp in a unusual way, and it's of questionable benefit to >wave. But the only thing I've seen that we can truly blaim on xmpp is >that the server/component configuration is unnecessarily painful. > > >Dave
