Richard Dobson wrote: >> No, it would work the other way around -- it enables you to re-use your >> existing SOCK5 and IBB code, but for the negotiation you'd use Jingle >> instead of SI. > > Ah I see, I thought so, I was suggesting doing things the other way > around which would be far more backwards compatible as you wouldnt need > to implement two separate ways of initiating file transfers which allows > you to reuse not just the SOCKS5 and IBB code but also the SI and file > transfer initiation code and you are just adding an extra stream-method > which makes things much simpler, certainly for me it would make > implementing it 100x simpler as my SI/file transfer code is all > abstracted out and all I would need to do was implement a jingle > bytestream stream-method, not redo all the file transfer discovery, > offering, acceptance etc etc which makes things very much more complicated.
I understand. But SI and Jingle essentially perform the same functions, since they both enable negotiation. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
