Joe Gregorio wrote:
On 6/17/05, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joe Gregorio wrote:
The one thing missing from the analysis is the overhead, and
practicality, of switching protocols (HTTP to XMPP).
I'm not aware of anything that might be called "overhead."
I was referring to switching both the client and server from running
HTTP to running XMPP. That may not be practical or even possible
for some people. Yes, I understand that you run this right now.
Yes, I understand that you run a business doing this right now.
Yes, I agree that your solution is one way to solve the problem.
Do you agree that 99.99% of all syndication is done via
HTTP today and also offering an HTTP based solution would be of value?
Joe, I'd be careful with how you structure this argument. It could be
applied in a different context, for example:
Do you agree that 99.99% of all syndication is done via HTTP GET
and POST today and offering a solution based only on these two
verbs would be of value?
One can go down this path and cater to the least common denominator
always, or one can say that perhaps MIDP 1.0 phones are not particularly
well adapted to perform complex editing tasks beyond simple GET and POST.
Perhaps HTTP is suited to a wide, but not universal, range of
applications dealing with relatively coarse and relatively infrequently
updated content; and XMPP is well suited to a different -- always on,
firehose -- set of applications, with a wide overlap between the two.
And perhaps they could be combined. I could see a future where there
was a "feedmesh" backbone with nodes exchanging data via XMPP, serving
content out to the rest of the universe via HTTP.
- Sam Ruby
P.S. Why is this on atom-sytax? Is there a concrete proposal we are
talking about here? Is there likely to be?
