Hello Bill, Bill de hOra wrote:
> Great, so where is that knowledge held within the XMPP community? The > Web community's knowledge on how to scale is easily discovered. That > doesn't mean to say it's easy or cheap to scale, just that the > information on how to do so is widely available. Can I say the same > for XMPP? I don't think so, hence my claim it's partly Voodoo > today. So I still think for the most part people don't know how to > deploy, and so resort to systems approaches they do understand, such > as Comet/BOSH gateways. Yes, but we will get there. Implementations are maturing based on those experiences. It takes time to percolate and become largely available information. The person working on it are busy making this happen (us for example) and probably cannot do other thing like focus on building. Communication always happen after several project has been done and expertise has been consolidated / validated in several different environments. >> However, XMPP is definitely not "lan scale". >I agree, here's what I said: "I'm talking about *deployments* here - >I'm not questioning whether XMPP itself is a scalable protocol." I am talking about deployment as well. Current scale / state of the art is in the number of tens of millions users, several millions simultaneous. > The problem with using HTTP as a transport for XMPP is that it might > hurt XMPP - the history of SOAP/WS suggests treating HTTP as a > transport doesn't work out. Eventually RESTful messaging will be built > (probably via adding constraints) subsuming other messaging protocols > (I'm also thinking about stuff like amqp). Ideally for me, > XMPP/5222/5269 becomes as ubiquitous as HTTP/80. > [snip] Yes, I agree with your last point. HTTP and XMPP can work both hand in hand but it does not mean that XMPP has to be over HTTP in all cases. -- Mickaël Rémond http://www.process-one.net/
