Hi Matthias! :) Matthias Wimmer wrote: > Hi Peter! > > Peter Saint-Andre schrieb: >> I don't have a strong preference really. A component feels a bit more >> like a client because it is a local connection, plus c2s connections are >> simpler than s2s connections. Let's pick one and be done with it. :) > > > The reason why I for the most part suggest using jabber:server instead > of jabber:client is, that in the jabber:client namespace the from > attribute on stanza is optional, while on jabber:server it is not. I > think this is one of the biggest differences between these two > namespaces.
In fact I think it's the only difference. ;-) > So the component connection which also forces this stanza > attribute to be present matches better the jabber:server namespace. True. > Minor reasons: > - I'd say that component connections are more like a s2s connection, as > you do not manage sessions from them in the server. Good point. But I suppose that a session is tied to resource binding and sending initial presence (we're getting rid of session establishment in rfc3921bis for this reason -- a session is essentially a presence session), so I don't know if this reason is relevant. > - Both with s2s and components you typically route one or more domains > completely to the same desination. With c2s you only route single users > out of a domain. Right. As I said, I think there are reasons to go with either jabber:client or jabber:server. It may more more a matter of picking one than choosing based on some reasoning. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
