[JDEV] Jabber as COM/DCOM replacement for linux.

[Daniel Veillard]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 03:50:55PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Eric Andreychek wrote:
> 
> > On the website, Dave discusses reasons to 
> > use a new Jabber::Middleware protocol.  
> > We could definatly overload the current 
> > system to work, but he felt there would 
> > be advantages to setting up an entire new 
> > protocol for the job.  Any thoughts?
> 
> I'd like to second Dizzy's suggestion of creating a jabber:middleware
> protocol. The jabber:client protocol is great for IM, but JAM
> (Jabber-as-Middleware) is different enough to merit some wide-open
> thinking about the protocols involved.

  I tend to agree with both the need for more middleware stuff and
redesign of an extra protocol layer.

  Using Jabber as a message bus layer with persistance and guarantee
of delivery is very promising. As suggested adding adding an XML-RPC
or SOAP capabilities to this framework allows to build reliable
cooperative frameworks with potentially a lot of users.

Do you have plans in this area ? 
There has been work on it already and I would prefer a coordinated approach
rather than everybody developping it's own RPC extensions, e.g.:

  http://www.pipetree.com/jabber/XMLRPC/

and i tend to agree with the view that message is not the proper
framework for RPC transport. Extending IQ is one possibility but
if a middleware layer is to be deployed I would prefer to have
a clean namespace for RPC extensions.


Daniel

P.S.: On a different subject:
      The examples I have seen so far for the use of XML namespace seems
      to take great care of only using default namespaces. Is this a 
      limitation imposed at the protocol layer or to avoid limitations
      present in implementations ?

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/
veillard at redhat.com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/