Re: [Standards] Stream Management and BOSH
While BOSH has it's own acknowledgement mechanism, there are still some subtle differences when it comes to resumption: With resumption you don't need to: - re-request the roster - resend presence - re-establish state information (as mentioned in XEP-0198) I see performance benefits (less HTTP queries), when you could just resume a BOSH session by means of XEP-0198. - Christian > Hi, > > I don't know if this was discussed already or not but I couldn't find > anything trustworthy about combining Stream Management with BOSH. > > I'd like to hear an opinion from the community regarding using Stream > Management over BOSH. It looks like these two can be combined but the > questions are: > 1. Doest this make sense? > 2. Was Stream Management designed with BOSH in mind or only for regular TCP > (or WS) connections?
Re: [Standards] Stream Management and BOSH
On 19 October 2015 at 12:27, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > Hi, > > I don't know if this was discussed already or not but I couldn't find > anything trustworthy about combining Stream Management with BOSH. > > I'd like to hear an opinion from the community regarding using Stream > Management over BOSH. It looks like these two can be combined but the > questions are: > 1. Doest this make sense? > 2. Was Stream Management designed with BOSH in mind or only for regular TCP > (or WS) connections? I agree that on the surface it doesn't make sense. However Lance Stout provided me with an interesting use-case: using XEP-0198 allows you to seamlessly transfer a session between TCP, BOSH and WS (in theory). In practice, Prosody doesn't really support this (you have to resume the session over the same transport you initiated the session on). But it's something we're considering changing, and I don't think it would be much work. Regarding question 2, no, I think it's safe to say that XEP-0198 was not designed with BOSH in mind. BOSH has its own similar functionality built in, and except for the use-case mentioned above (assuming it worked reliably), I don't think it makes sense to negotiate it over BOSH. Regards, Matthew
Re: [Standards] Stream Management and BOSH
On 19.10.2015 13:27, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > Hi, > > I don't know if this was discussed already or not but I couldn't find > anything trustworthy about combining Stream Management with BOSH. > > I'd like to hear an opinion from the community regarding using Stream > Management over BOSH. It looks like these two can be combined but the > questions are: > 1. Doest this make sense? No, you don't need Stream Management (XEP-198) when using BOSH. - Florian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
