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
