(Apologies for the delay in publicizing; sickness overtook me) One of the guerilla conversations at the XSF Summit was about XMPP usage in the browser. Below is the first documented follow-on. Most of the rest of the responses were about general acceptance of the concept, hence they're omission.
I'll try to forward the more substantive comments soon (and/or urge the original participants to respond again here). - m&m (PS: Originally sent from the "wrong" account; hopefully this doesn't show up twice!) Begin forwarded message: > From: Adam Brault <[email protected]> > Date: February 8, 2011 21:25:58 MST > To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: XMPP in the browser -- your thoughts? > > Hi, Folks... > > So... what do you *really* think about the idea of XMPP in the browser? ;) > > After discussions at the XSF Summit this weekend, I feel pretty passionate > about this idea and want to do what I can to help push the issue at least to > a point of reasonable consideration. (For those of you who weren't a part of > the conversations that took place, it sounds as if there is a window of > possibility for XMPP in the browser.) > > As most of you know, I am not a software engineer and I'm not even close to > an XMPP developer. Also note that I myself don't take ownership for these > ideas—they belong to people smarter than me. I'm just set on advocating them > as much as I can. > > Will you take a look at what I've written below and provide your feedback? > (My current thought is to post a variation of it based on feedback to the > hybi mailing list and to our blog at some point. At Joe's suggestion, I > submitted a talk to OSCON with the same general topic.) > > The kinds of things to consider as you read: What do I have wrong? Where are > the blind spots? Where does it sound naive? What examples should I be > pointing to? Is this even a good point—do you yourself think it's a good > idea? What other arguments do you perceive there to be for and against > it—particularly in terms of benefits, barriers and objections...? Would it be > better for someone other than myself to propose the notion? I certainly > wouldn't take offense at the suggestion. > > I very much appreciate your honest feedback and consideration. Don't be > afraid you'll hurt my feelings—just be as blunt as you possibly can. :) > > Cheers, > > Adam Brault > &yet > > > ======================== > > Websockets are a terrific idea that suddenly got put on hold this year. But > perhaps Websockets' stumble sets us up to take a closer look at something > else. > > Giving web developers access to a real transport opens all kinds of > opportunities in development and leapfrogs a lot of the hacky methods > currently used to push data to end users. Unfortunately, it's highly possible > Websockets might be an opt-in feature for the forseeable future in some major > browsers due to security concerns (among other things). > > It makes sense to seriously evaluate the idea of browser-based XMPP. The idea > isn't a new one, but it's beginning to gain some traction for good reason. > > It is historical fact and present reality that the Internet as a whole is > weakened by monopolies and dramatically strengthened by diversity. > Competition and decentralization makes everything about the Internet better. > But more than just playing to the web's ideals of decentralization, XMPP's > federated, flexible, mature and secure nature as a protocol opens up enormous > possibilities for developers, browser creators, business, and consumers. > > A few things that browser-based XMPP would help make possible: > > 1. Accelerate the growth of realtime/push web applications by providing > XMPP's deep feature set via JavaScript API that makes XML easier to deal with > for frontend developers and faster to build off of XMPP's strengths instead > of continuously reinventing the wheel. > > 2. Overcome the last mile of realtime tech which is often ignored—pushing to > the end user. Things like PubSubHubBub push between servers and services, but > the getting that same data to the end user at this point is not as elegant or > straightforward as it could be with XMPP embedded in the browser. > > 3. Take federated social networking to the end-user, conceivably allowing > them to choose network(s) to interact with, rapidly making federation the > norm in this arena and decreasing the likelihood of one or two proprietary > social networks to dominate the web. > > 4. Enable browser-based authentication, ID and payment to become a reality. > In addition to speeding up development by commonly centralizing the most > repetitive problems, the whole Internet basically becomes an App Store with a > "Buy Now" button baked into the browser—birthing a new industry of webapps > aimed at consumer-level impulse purchasing a la the various mobile app stores. > > 5. Revolutionary stuff that hasn't even been dreamed of yet. > > Ultimately, I think this type of new browser feature set is so beneficial to > all parties involved that I think we're looking at a huge increase in the > Internet economy once browsers begin to implement such a spec. > > These (among other things) provide some very good reasons for strongly > considering browser-based XMPP. > > Still, I anticipate harsh disagreement and welcome it. At the moment, I > actually want to hear why this is a bad idea much more than I want to hear > why it's a great one. I believe it's worth giving serious evaluation to the > variety of concerns involved. > > In inviting criticism, however, I'd like to make the ad hominem aspect of > counterarguments moot: I work at a company that has experience with XMPP, > node.js, and Websockets, and have had numerous discussions around this topic, > but I myself am absolutely not a software engineer. I'm fully aware of my > ignorance but generally unafraid of it. :) That said, the notion and its > possibilities are not my ideas—I'm just collecting thoughts, ideas and > discussion from smarter folks than myself. > > I believe the critical opposing arguments that will be voiced fall into one > of several categories: > > 1. "XMPP sucks for JavaScript developers." > As I alluded to above, there needs to be a solid JavaScript API for XMPP in > the browser that means developers don't have to do the pain of working with > XML in JavaScript. This is an absolute necessity for XMPP in the browser to > be at all feasible. > > 2. "XMPP doesn't scale and doesn't belong in serious high-volume web > services." > It is my understanding there's compelling real-life data showing the high > level to which XMPP can be scaled. I'm not the right person to provide and > discuss this evidence, however. > > 3. "Websockets would be better." > I think Websockets would be different—better in some ways, for certain—though > without XMPP's instant depth of features and flexibility. And I would hope to > see an adoption of Websockets. This isn't either/or. > > Thanks for reading and I'm looking forward to discussion. > > ========================
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
