[JDEV] File Transfer Proposals

[Julian Missig]

That's the purpose of PASS, yes.

On Sun, 2002-02-17 at 06:34, Philippe Raxhon wrote:
> Just a question: can this "design" be used to do file transfer with 
> other IM like ICQ (I don't know how they do it)?
> 
> Julian Missig wrote:
> 
> >PASS wouldn't be permanently storing mp3 and divx files and whatever
> >else people send, it's just a proxy.
> >
> >I want to get OOB and PASS working with decent JEPs before we even begin
> >arguing webdav & friends, because that has a lot of the filesharing and
> >caching issues...
> >
> >As for using your own protocol, I'm not a fan of that at all. There is
> >really no reason to recreate HTTP/FTP and other such file-sending
> >protocols. The entire point of sending files out-of-bound is that there
> >are existing protocols which already do it and do it better, because
> >they have experience.
> >
> >In the end, using HTTP/FTP instead of writing our own protocol probably
> >involves *less* work because there is craploads of code out there to
> >copy, and HTTP/FTP don't have any of the bugs we may be creating when we
> >create our own protocol.
> >
> >So, again I ask for comments which tell me *what is wrong with HTTP/FTP
> >OOB and PASS*, not comments which tell me how you want to do it.
> >
> >Julian
> >
> >On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 22:02, aliban at gmx.net wrote:
> >
> >>hello again,
> >>it might sound annoying but as i already mentioned i´m currently 
> >>working on a filesharing component, already done parts of it, will be 
> >>done next week(maybe).
> >>
> >>My idea behind filetransfer was not to send the file over jabber 
> >>server because this would flood the server soon with mp3 and divx 
> >>movies (esspecially filesharing). Whatever we have a xml 
> >>connection and that would be ideal to control the filetransfer, you 
> >>can send "abort", "resume" commands via jabber xml and do the 
> >>byte transfer with another very primitive socket that simple creates 
> >>a connection and pushs the data through it. In my point of view this 
> >>has two advantages. writing tcp sockets does not need much time 
> >>(in comparition with writing a http/ftp server). a simple tcp socket is 
> >>easier to control then many spawned http servers. consider, that 
> >>each http thread/http account would have to need it´s own 
> >>restrictions.
> >>of course a http has the advantage that you can browse the 
> >>directories and find other interesting files but what if user does not 
> >>want to allow this? (i.e. he wants to offer this person only one file) I 
> >>wrote a iq for my jabberfs to enable filebrowsing as well as updating 
> >>the jabberfs databases...
> >>http://skabber.rudbek.com/jabberfs/jabberfs-iq-files.txt
> >>there you have two ways to find out what kind of files are offered at 
> >>this client. a) you ask for a full file list of all subdirs (it is optimised, 
> >>it wont send everything again each time but only the changes)
> >> b) you browse the file step by step by geting only the files of the 
> >>*current* directory. for the protocol for jabberfs is only onw iq not 
> >>finished yet, the jabberfs:iq:options to set the connection speed as 
> >>well as some other options like <firewalled/>
> >>
> >>btw, my jabberfs:iq:filetransfer is not so complicate. in general it´s 
> >>nearly the same as jabber:iq:oob. maybe we can accept it as an 
> >>alternative way to passing url/ it passes the ip + port
> >>as well as some additional file information  (because i consider the 
> >>jabber xml as a good control way for the transfer)
> >>
> >>cya, Edrin