On 30/07/2015 11:35, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:07:28 +0200
Goffi <go...@goffi.org> wrote:
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.
why wouldn't file transfer work offline or with MUC ? We just need a way
to request a file with an uri.
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.
jid auth validation is a clear big advantage over random url.
Jingle adoption? It has been 10 years left. Where is it?
Should we wait 10 more years?
jingle is adopted in several clients as far as I know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)
Not sure if FT is available everywhere though.
Anyway, I agree that a first good step would be to deprecate XEP-0096,
and I have already expressed my opinion, if HTTP upload is validated
I'll implement it.
Goffi
