Tomasz Sterna wrote:
Dnia 2008-02-08, Pt o godzinie 20:54 +0000, Richard Dobson pisze:
But surely in those cases the JIDs would be something like:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What I _really_ don't like with it, is mapping one namespace to many
namespaces in XMPP domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is the same thing that @orange. and
@tmobile.
But they are not are they, they are completely different providers, the
poster was saying how they wanted to address completely different
service providers using JIDs similar to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/vodafone
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/orange
But personally I dont think that is the right way to go about it,
resources IMO should really be used for addressing the same entity just
how they are used in c2s terms, and IMO different service providers are
different entities. The other way is to do as Pedro suggested and use:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and just allow the one gateway to route the text message via the
cheapest route itself.
This is similiar case with transports, that map one legacy names to many
XMPP JIDs, depending where the gateway is, causing very abstract
problems...
So you are suggesting when addressing transports we use JIDs similar to
the following?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/yahoo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/aim
?
"I just switched my transport from gw.xxxx.com to gw.yyyyy.net. How do I
migrate my contacts of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh, btw, I do want to keep the
chat history so this strange thingy JRU is no good..."
Migration is a completely separate issue to the addressing of the
gateways, that just needs a protocol so you can easily migrate
automatically without much real effort from the user.
And with different gateways we loose the fallback to try Gateway2 when
selected Gateway1 resource is not available (default highest priority
resource message routing fallback).
No you dont, if the gateway is not available you will get an error
returned to you and you can just try resending to a different gateway.
Richard
