Just thought of this: if you use an 'auto-config' type setting, perhaps we
could take a 'Bonjour' like route in that each server broadcasts within its
local IP range / subnet for other XMPP servers and makes a live, real time list
of available instances.
Regards,
James
This message was sent from my iPhone
> On 13/10/2012, at 4:53, Tomasz Sterna <to...@xiaoka.com> wrote:
>
>> Dnia 2012-10-12, pią o godzinie 17:18 +0200, Alexandre Jousset pisze:
>>>>> Maybe it would be a good thing to say this (only 1 SM per domain to use
>>>>> less memory) in the install / config guide after the changes.
>>
>> I've now reread it and got it.
>> Yes, it is worth mentioning in the documentation.
>>
>>
>>> We do. In the simplest way to do it, routers don't forward other routers'
>>> binding requests. Of course it is possible to implement it to allow
>>> multi-hops, but I'm afraid this could lead to problems (and inefficiency)
>>> for no real gain (except simplistic configuration). Of course it would be
>>> easier to only list just one router of the mesh when adding a router, but I
>>> would prefer sacrificing this easiness in favor of efficiency. After all,
>>> the administrator has all knowledge about its server architecture. So when
>>> adding a router, the config file should list *all* other already running
>>> routers in the mesh.
>>
>> What if you do not manage all the routers in the mesh?
>> And you were given a password to access only one or two routers of the
>> mesh?
>>
>> In my proposal nothing stops you from making each router know all the
>> others to make it more efficient, but it shouldn't be _required_.
>>
>>
>>> Also, in the pseudo-code I've written (and started to implement) I had to
>>> make a distinction between local components and remote routers, just for
>>> efficiency, to allow the use of a local component preferably before trying
>>> a remote one. So the local components have greater priorities than remote
>>> ones, and both are chosen with weighted random in their category. What do
>>> you think about this?
>>
>> "Explicit is better than implicit."
>> If you want local components to have higher priority - just say so in
>> the configuration file. But default should be that remote binds are as
>> equal as local ones.
>>
>>
>>> Finally, I've added a "routers.xml" file (with a final 's', naming can be
>>> changed of course) to allow reloading it dynamically to change its
>>> connections settings if needed. What do you think about this? Do you think
>>> it could be necessary?
>>
>> Seams reasonable and simple.
>> "remote-routers.xml" maybe?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tomasz Sterna
>> Instant Messaging Consultant : Open Source Developer
>> http://tomasz.sterna.tv/ http://www.xiaoka.com/portfolio
>>
>>
>>
