Re: [Standards] Thoughts on MIX adoption (and will MIX ever happen?)
Le jeudi 10 mai 2018, 10:36:17 CEST Steve Kille a écrit : > Having made the latest round of MIX edits, I felt it was time to share > some thoughts on MIX. > > It has been a number of years since work was started on MIX, and > implementations are thin on the ground. It seems sensible consider when > and if this will change. > [SNIP] Interested in implementing MIX in SàT, but not a priority (and lacking resources). We have already blogging, comments, shared files and pictures based on pubsub/jingle. Goffi ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Thoughts on MIX adoption (and will MIX ever happen?)
Hi Steve, I’m interested in implementing MIX in aioxmpp and JabberCat. I consider the model of MUC broken (I’m not going to list the brokenness here) and unfixable within the existing specification. MIX is huge, I agree. Splitting the spec seems like a good idea, but it will not be easy (to split it in a way that clients implementing only Base can interact (or detect incompatibility) with services implementing more than Base. If we can get this right, splitting would be tremendously useful. The splitting point suggested by Daniel (essentially Joining, Leaving and Messaging, without any presence things) seems like a very good start to me. kind regards, Jonas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Thoughts on MIX adoption (and will MIX ever happen?)
2018-05-10 14:38 GMT+05:00 Evgeny Khramtsov : > I'm for sure vetoing MIX implementation in ejabberd in the form it's > presented currently. We too don't have plans to implement MIX in Xabber on any platforms. It's too bloated and unnecessarily overcomplicated and hardly an improvement over (insanely bad) XEP-0045. We also don't have plans to support XEP-0045 in Xabber for Web or iOS. -- Ненахов Андрей Директор ООО "Редсолюшн" (Челябинск) (351) 750-50-04 http://www.redsolution.ru ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Thoughts on MIX adoption (and will MIX ever happen?)
Thu, 10 May 2018 11:21:43 +0200 Daniel Gultsch wrote: > What worries me about MIX is that it looks like such a big spec that > no body is going to implement fully that years from now we are still > going to find 'bugs' in the XEP. Like we recently found 'bugs' (under > specified things) in PubSub and that XEP is 15+ years old. I agree with this (as I said many times). And I of course disagree with the XEP author: comparing MIX with other poorly implemented monster specs assuming that this is "normal" is beyond me. I'm for sure vetoing MIX implementation in ejabberd in the form it's presented currently. As I said: we just have to use pubsub and improve pubsub spec if we miss some really basic functionality. And I agree with Holger: if we cannot reuse pubsub for such simple functionality as group messaging then why we need pubsub at all? ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Thoughts on MIX adoption (and will MIX ever happen?)
2018-05-10 10:59 GMT+02:00 Philipp Hörist : > Im interested in implementing it in Gajim > > It would be nice if someone could share the domains where a server > runs that offers some kind of MIX impl. Yeah if isode could make a mix server publicly available that would certainly make the chicken/egg situation a bit easier. What worries me about MIX is that it looks like such a big spec that no body is going to implement fully that years from now we are still going to find 'bugs' in the XEP. Like we recently found 'bugs' (under specified things) in PubSub and that XEP is 15+ years old. I’m not sure if there is even a 'complete' pubsub implementation out there. And if we know that the XEP isn’t going to be implemented fully I don’t understand why we are not splitting this into several smaller XEPs. I might be wrong about that but this is how I *feel* as a client developer. I’m certainly interested in MIX in that I think we need the account model and the better archive management. But why not put the account model + basic message sending receiving in a base XEP and do everything in separate XEPs? If we can get people to implement those two things (I don’t even think we need presence) this will already be a huge step forward for a more modern group chat. And that doesn’t feel as overwhelming as having to read a full MIX spec. cheers Daniel ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Thoughts on MIX adoption (and will MIX ever happen?)
Im interested in implementing it in Gajim It would be nice if someone could share the domains where a server runs that offers some kind of MIX impl. regards Philipp 2018-05-10 10:36 GMT+02:00 Steve Kille : > > Having made the latest round of MIX edits, I felt it was time to share some > thoughts on MIX. > > It has been a number of years since work was started on MIX, and > implementations are thin on the ground. It seems sensible consider when and > if this will change. > > There are a number of reasons why MIX take-up is likely to be slow: > > 1. It is a big spec to implement for either client or server, even for a > server with a good MAM and PubSub base. > > 2. The is a chicken/egg situation with clients and servers. A server > implementor will wait until MIX clients are available and vice versa. > > 3. This does not appear to be an exciting new service (but see later). A > simple view of MIX is that it is just a different way of providing an > existing service, so there is not simple customer benefit or drive for MIX. > > 4. MUC broadly works. There are lots of little things broken, but there > is no major issue to force replacing it. > > 5. MIX needs a migration.This will inherently slow things down and > inhibit starting stuff. > > 6. Some in the community are working to address issues by updates to MUC. > From my perspective, this is "string and duct tape" and is not addressing > deeper problems. Such activity will delay MIX. > > 7. Related to the above, some feel that MIX is just too much, and this > definitely creates a feeling of "will MIX ever happen?". > > > Predicting the future is hard, but. > > Isode is committed to both server (M-Link COTS product) and client (Swift > free & open source) implementations of MIX. We have strategic reasons to > do this, particularly because of requirements on constrained networks. We > have lots of other things we also need to do, but MIX is going to happen in > our product set. > > It may well be that others will produce general purpose MIX implementations > first (e.g., Surevine), but let's suppose this does not happen. > > It seems conceivable that MIX will end up as a specification that is useful > for specific purposes, but not widely implemented (e.g., like XEP-0365). > > However, I do not think this will happen, as MIX has many benefits. I > think that initial implementations will encourage others, almost certainly > gradually at first.Once there are a few implementations, more will > follow. Then MIX will be seen as something that modern XMPP > implementations need to have and other implementations will play catch up. > > Let me justify this in terms of MIX benefits that I see: >- Some of the broken bits of MUC that we all live with will become much > clearer as MIX starts to be used. There will be a "how did I ever live with > that" experience >- Multi-client will become more important, and MIX will avoid a slew of > MUC problems >- "proper" history support will add value >- Message only option will be important for constrained bandwidth and > will facilitate observers (avoiding "presence clutter" from observers >- As we work to build richer multi-user communication, with shared files, > shared pictures, comments and likes, MIX is going to be the building block > we need (that MUC is not) > > I do not think that this is going to happen quickly, but my (biased) bet is > that MIX is going to happen > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > ___ ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
