[JDEV] Re: Implementing Jabber Server in other Languages (Was RE: [JDEV]Cus tomizing Jabber server)
This is one of the exact goals of the Foundation, to have a formalized process for working on the protocol. Jabelin will then be the group to work on server development. Some more info about this should be out today or tomorrow. --temas On 11 May 2001 08:50:50 -0500, Iain Shigeoka wrote: At 02:42 PM 5/9/2001 -0500, John Hebert wrote: On second thought - David Waite's right - we have to look at separating protocol from server implementation. My point all along. Apache has the W3C. What does Jabber have? Do we need a separate jabber protocol effort separate from the server devel effort? Yes. We need to separate protocol from implementation. Most people I've spoken to are at least philosophically in agreement on this issue. This has been a problem since Jabber has evolved as an implementation that defined the protocol. IMHO the time has really come to split the protocol off. Jabber has remained coherent until now because there has only been one server implementation available so the implementation has defined the protocol. However, as Jabber.com now as a separate server (albiet very closely related) and there are other efforts to develop servers, a separate protocol standard is going to become essential. As I understand it, this is something that we can use the Jabber Foundation as a tool to help us accomplish. FYI, I'm very interested in the protocol and implementing my own Jabber server (in Java not Python) and have little/no interest in the current C implementation. Reading the protocol docs from this perspective has really been what's gotten me interested in better defining the protocols to stand alone from the implementation. As it stands now, it is pretty much impossible to write a server based on the existing protocols because they are incomplete. In addition, there is no way to test your protocol compliance except in relationship to the current C implementation. I'm hoping to also work on addressing that issue as well (standard compliance when a standard exists). -iain _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ___ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev ___ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
Re: [JDEV] Re: Implementing Jabber Server in other Languages (Was RE: [JDEV] Cus tomizing Jabber server)
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 12:37:22PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: temas wrote: This is one of the exact goals of the Foundation, to have a formalized process for working on the protocol. Jabelin will then be the group to work on server development. Some more info about this should be out today or tomorrow. Well, Jabelin will be the group to work on server development for the reference implementation, not for every server implementation, right? At least such is my understanding... :) Yup. Diz ___ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
[JDEV] RE: Implementing Jabber Server in other Languages (Was RE: [JDEV]Cus tomizing Jabber server)
It seems like the prototyping point here is the strongest. From a perf perspective, C/C++ all the way seems pretty important for carriers and large ISPs (like us if I may be so bold), but not for people tooling around with new features... If we all agree with this, the nice thing might be that a second/alternate language version would have an EXPLICIT goal of being readable and modifiable and NOT being efficient or cheaply/quickly scalable. Of course, we'd never agree on the language, so there'd end up being 10. -Original Message- From: John Hebert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 3:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Implementing Jabber Server in other Languages (Was RE: [JDEV] Cus tomizing Jabber server) 5/9/01 8:03:42 AM, Matt Diez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really don't see implementation of Jabber in other languages as being that practical or necessary. I must confess, I really don't like changing server code to change server behavior (registration, I'm looking at you). But, I really can't see how/when/where/why a server in, say Python is all that advantageous, Quicker to prototype and test new capabilities, for one. Lots of XML libs/tools for another. Python works best as a glue scripting language between components. save for its multiplatform capabilities. But, I must say, given the speed Jabber must work to route messages, That's why I mentioned calling C binaries from Python or language X if needed. Also, performance may not be a priority. I can imagine using the jabber server for other tasks besides IM chatting. I don't see a Python (or any other language of your choice) server as a) useful b) practical Oh yeah? Moldy bread. This demands the inside-out reworking of the Jabber server in a variety of languages, and the development of alternate servers that can anticipate future changes to Jabber internal protocols and such. Interesting. Kinda like Apache httpd's DSO modules. Now - the ability to change certain server behaviors does make itself attractive, and is a pretty compelling argument for implementing Jabber in other languages, but I'm not sure there aren't simply better ways around this, particularly ones that don't require wholesale server rewrite whenever fundamental changes in the default Jabber server occur. I'm getting confused... didn't you just say something to the contrary before this? And don't you mean protocol instead of your last use of server in the above paragraph? If so, agreed, server rewrites for protocol changes is icky. I think the focus of current server developers should be to first document all internal protocols - (s2s and xdb being fine examples), and then to worry about making Jabber as portable as possible. I've got a pretty hefty RS6K sitting next to my desk begging to run Jabber, but even IBM's porting efforts have only been partially successful. Yup, you are correct. St. Peter mentioned that this work is being done. Bring out the cat o' nine tails. Which, in many ways - is a pretty strong argument for much more platform-agnostic languages (perl, python, java), but I think we need to look at Apache as a good model. Are you skipping on your Lithium again? Yes, I know that Apache is only a server (well not so much these days) and Jabber is a set of related technologies, but I feel that making the current Jabber server as fast/friendly/portable as possible is the real key here, and maintaining a variety of separate server implementations would be... Jabber = related technologies? That's not what I thought Jer had in mind. On second thought - David Waite's right - we have to look at separating protocol from server implementation. My point all along. Apache has the W3C. What does Jabber have? Do we need a separate jabber protocol effort separate from the server devel effort? You know - I just contradicted myself. I'm getting used to it. -- John Hebert System Engineer http://www.vedalabs.com Changing your state of mind through sound. ___ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev ___ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
RE: [JDEV] RE: Implementing Jabber Server in other Languages (Was RE: [JDEV] Cus tomizing Jabber server)
It seems like the prototyping point here is the strongest. From a perf perspective, C/C++ all the way seems pretty important for carriers and large ISPs (like us if I may be so bold), but not for people tooling around with new features... If we all agree with this, the nice thing might be that a second/alternate language version would have an EXPLICIT goal of being readable and modifiable and NOT being efficient or cheaply/quickly scalable. These goals are not mutually exclusive. The meeting/common point is called elegance. ___ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
[JDEV] Re: Implementing Jabber Server in other Languages (Was RE: [JDEV]Cus tomizing Jabber server)
I personally (and I believe jer too) would love love love to see the server implemented in other languages. The more options available the stronger I can see the growth of Jabber as a whole. The whole reason we have a common protocol is so we can have many servers. Yes, some of the servers may not scale as well, some might not expose more advanced functionality, but having a more dynamic server to test on could be helpful in many scenarios. Just had to throw in my $0.02 --temas On 09 May 2001 14:42:37 -0500, John Hebert wrote: 5/9/01 8:03:42 AM, Matt Diez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really don't see implementation of Jabber in other languages as being that practical or necessary. I must confess, I really don't like changing server code to change server behavior (registration, I'm looking at you). But, I really can't see how/when/where/why a server in, say Python is all that advantageous, Quicker to prototype and test new capabilities, for one. Lots of XML libs/tools for another. Python works best as a glue scripting language between components. save for its multiplatform capabilities. But, I must say, given the speed Jabber must work to route messages, That's why I mentioned calling C binaries from Python or language X if needed. Also, performance may not be a priority. I can imagine using the jabber server for other tasks besides IM chatting. I don't see a Python (or any other language of your choice) server as a) useful b) practical Oh yeah? Moldy bread. This demands the inside-out reworking of the Jabber server in a variety of languages, and the development of alternate servers that can anticipate future changes to Jabber internal protocols and such. Interesting. Kinda like Apache httpd's DSO modules. Now - the ability to change certain server behaviors does make itself attractive, and is a pretty compelling argument for implementing Jabber in other languages, but I'm not sure there aren't simply better ways around this, particularly ones that don't require wholesale server rewrite whenever fundamental changes in the default Jabber server occur. I'm getting confused... didn't you just say something to the contrary before this? And don't you mean protocol instead of your last use of server in the above paragraph? If so, agreed, server rewrites for protocol changes is icky. I think the focus of current server developers should be to first document all internal protocols - (s2s and xdb being fine examples), and then to worry about making Jabber as portable as possible. I've got a pretty hefty RS6K sitting next to my desk begging to run Jabber, but even IBM's porting efforts have only been partially successful. Yup, you are correct. St. Peter mentioned that this work is being done. Bring out the cat o' nine tails. Which, in many ways - is a pretty strong argument for much more platform-agnostic languages (perl, python, java), but I think we need to look at Apache as a good model. Are you skipping on your Lithium again? Yes, I know that Apache is only a server (well not so much these days) and Jabber is a set of related technologies, but I feel that making the current Jabber server as fast/friendly/portable as possible is the real key here, and maintaining a variety of separate server implementations would be... Jabber = related technologies? That's not what I thought Jer had in mind. On second thought - David Waite's right - we have to look at separating protocol from server implementation. My point all along. Apache has the W3C. What does Jabber have? Do we need a separate jabber protocol effort separate from the server devel effort? You know - I just contradicted myself. I'm getting used to it. -- John Hebert System Engineer http://www.vedalabs.com Changing your state of mind through sound. ___ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev ___ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
RE: [JDEV] RE: Implementing Jabber Server in other Languages (Was RE: [JDEV] Cus tomizing Jabber server)
All too true (your being right, of course). But the elegance concept is a philosphy, not based on any language. Far too few who call themselves programmers possess it. -Original Message- From: Max Metral [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 14:07 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [JDEV] RE: Implementing Jabber Server in other Languages (Was RE: [JDEV] Cus tomizing Jabber server) ___ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
