Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:07:28 +0200 Goffi <go...@goffi.org> wrote: > My point is that HTTP transfer is nothing more than a P2P transfer > between server and requester(s) (and why would you not store the file > ?), and while trying to make life easier it will result in either > developers implementing both (so more complications at the end), > either they'll implement only one (say HTTP), resulting in a feature > loss.
What is the point in implementing file transfer protocol which will not work in all cases (MUC, offline, etc)? Why a developer would need proxy65 if it's not MUC friendly? I really see no point. > Beside the risk of losing the url that I have already mentioned, HTTP > give no advantage over Socks5, and doesn't do NAT traversal as > Jingle can do, and it's an other whole different server to maintain. There is a clear advantage over Socks5: MUC and offline support. And there is no NAT traversal problem for HTTP as far as I'm concerned. > Anyway, if the HTTP XEP is published I'll implement it anyway, I just > hope it will not have bad side effects on jingle adoption, neither it > will prevent to have new XEP for requesting a file with jingle (which > is a more elegant option in my opinion). If indeed both can live > together, well, why not. Jingle adoption? It has been 10 years left. Where is it? Should we wait 10 more years?
