On 1/30/10 12:42 AM, Liam wrote: > This blog post cogently positions XMPP against MQ systems > https://stpeter.im/index.php/2007/12/07/amqp-and-xmpp/ > > But now two years later, the pubsub spec makes no mention of reliable > delivery to offline subscribers,
Define "reliable". :) It's not clear to me why it would be necessary for the pubsub service to ensure reliable delivery to the endpoint, given that it doesn't know much about the nature of the intended recipient. Even if you have presence-based notification, presence is not reliable, so then you'd need an effort to make presence reliable. > and even ejabberd doesn't implement > AMP, which could provide that. (Code's written, but integration appears > to have been deferred indefinitely.) Yes, AMP has been mostly ignored by client and server developers alike. That indicates to me that AMP solved a problem that few people care about or solved the problem in the wrong way, or both. > It is astonishingly easy to miss messages with a browser-based client. > Um, have I chosen the wrong messaging technology for my app? That depends on what exactly you are trying to accomplish, I suppose. Reliable messaging has never been the strong suit of XMPP, which is why over time we've defined things like XEP-0079, XEP-01084, and XEP-0198. Perhaps some combination of those would meet your needs. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
