Understood, I didn't know federation was being tested in such conditions.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Michael MacFadden <
michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> XMPP would be involved when severs talk to each other.  For servers in
> remote locations, this became a problem.  I can not be more specific due
> to contractual considerations.  Suffice to say that XMPP barely worked for
> chat, let alone lively character by character collaboration.
>
> On 6/12/13 4:23 PM, "Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak)" <sten...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Is XMPP involved in the connection of Mobile devices in wiab or the
> >defunct
> >google wave?
> >Or are you thinking about a future when wave has already become a P2P
> >software?
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Michael MacFadden <
> >michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The general consensus was that XMPP had to much overhead to be practical
> >> in anything theory than highly connected environments for lively
> >> collaboration.  As bandwidth trails off, and/or you don't have
> >>persistent
> >> TCP connections (I.e. Mobile devices).  XMPP was killing the ability for
> >> lively collaboration.
> >>
> >> On 6/12/13 3:02 PM, "Dave" <w...@glark.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 12/06/13 14:48, Yuri Z wrote:
> >> >> But without XMPP you would need to define your own discovery
> >>protocol.
> >> >
> >> >Yes. And implement alternatives for a couple of other bits such as
> >> >stream encryption, and anti-spoofing (such as dialback).
> >> >
> >> >Nothing particularly tricky, although personally I don't think it's
> >> >worthwhile. There's a lot of XMPP specs and implementations that we
> >> >don't use, and our use of XMPP might be unusual, but I don't think it's
> >> >unreasonable.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Saludos,
> >     Bruno González
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com
> >http://www.stenyak.com
>
>
>


-- 
Saludos,
     Bruno González

_______________________________________________
Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com
http://www.stenyak.com

Reply via email to