On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > I see your point, but I'd prefer to see client developers only have to > implement one thing instead of several (and have to select which file > transfer mechanism to use in different circumstances).
Client specs should pick the best spec for the job they're trying to do, and the audience of the client; while I'm normally all about having a single way to do something to reduce confusion, JFT and HTTP Upload are completely orthogonal proposals, and the fact that one already exists should not block work on the other. HTTP Upload should be used when you want a file to be made available somewhere to one or more people (maybe publically, maybe with authentication), it's a "sharing" action, whereas JFT should be used when you want a (potentially encrypted) file transfer to a single recepient that should never be stored on an intermediary machine, eg. the "sending" action. —Sam P.S. Aside: That being said, were I to write a client I'd almost certainly prefer to use HTTP Upload exclusively. While Jingle is very powerful, and is actually quite a nifty protocol, it spans many specs and is way to complicated for a lazy developer like me to want to implement, whereas HTTP file upload is almost trivial to implement. -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 https://blog.samwhited.com
