I do like the idea of an additional jingle transport, that's very
pluggable and does not exclude using of other transports.
On 30/07/2015 20:21, Sam Whited wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Philipp Hancke
<fi...@goodadvice.pages.de> wrote:
2015-07-30 11:07 GMT+02:00 Goffi <go...@goffi.org>:
On 30/07/2015 02:29, Sam Whited wrote:
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.
For the record, my name is a copy/paste error or typo in the quoted
message there: I did not write that statement. Goffi did :)
My position is that we should adopt HTTP File Upload with the
provision that it add support for specifying headers that the client
should send back, and possibly an IQ to fetch the GET URL later to
support file upload systems where the final file name is not known up
front (though this is less of a priority for me).
—Sam
