On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Bernd Fondermann <bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > And if we evaluate AsyncWeb we might come to the conclusion to use it, > since it's easy for us to maintain it. > This could be done in the scope of GSoC. Is this planned? I figure > that the implementation itself might not take the whole summer and > there might be time to prepend a technology study.
Agreed, I think it would be beneficial to look into more detail on the choice of platform. Personally, looking more into the WebSocket implementation in Jetty (http://dev.eclipse.org/svnroot/rt/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty/trunk/jetty-websocket) makes me lean more towards basing it on Jetty. > So I like to rewind myself and ask a question: > What approach should we use for HTTP CM <-> XMPP Server communication? > According to XEP-124 there are three possible solutions: > >>> > This specification covers communication only between a client and the > connection manager. > It does not cover communication between the connection manager and the > server, since such communications are implementation-specific (e.g., > a. the server might natively support this HTTP binding, in which case > the connection manager will be a logical entity rather than a physical > entity; > b. alternatively the connection manager might be an independent > translating proxy such that the server might believe it is talking > directly to the client over TCP; or > c. the connection manager and the server might use a component > protocol or an API defined by the server implementation). a. would seem to be the easiest option, at least to start with. /niklas
