[JDEV] GZipping Jabber Messages
Max Metral
Max.Metral at PeoplepcHQ.com
Fri Jan 4 16:46:09 CST 2002
Seems to me you'd probably save a lot more, in aggregate, by encoding the
tags in a standard notation (i.e. the ASN.1 comment I made before) rather
than the payload. A token-y, session long (or server global) scheme would
be a lot lower processing overhead and save a ton of bandwidth.
XML was never meant to be bandwidth sensitive, in fact has almost the
opposite as a goal. But it's still great for what we're using it for in
general. A transparent (servers would support both) optimization only would
make sense.
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Missig [mailto:julian at jabber.org]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 5:31 PM
To: jdev at jabber.org
Subject: Re: [JDEV] GZipping Jabber Messages
It's not really defining a binary transport layer, it's just gzipping
the stream. They're looking for something less processor-intensive than
SSL, I imagine.
You can argue the merits of it when/if it comes up as an official
extension/replacement for bits of Jabber via a JEP. Until then, unless
you have a better suggestion, I think they're pretty much free to play
with want they want. Maybe they'll figure out something that would be
worth writing up a JEP for. Maybe not. Official Jabber won't contain it
until they write up a JEP, so there's no need to worry.
Julian
--
email: julian at jabber.org
jabber:julian at jabber.org
Michael F Lin wrote:
> Is this in parallel to how SSL works with encryption or does SSL do
> compression already? If so then lets just use SSL. If not, then I find the
> idea of defining our own binary transport layer a bit unsettling. We're
> talking XML, we should be above all that ;-)
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
>
> Julian Missig
> <julian at jabber.or To: jdev at jabber.org
> g> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: [JDEV]
GZipping Jabber Messages
> jdev-admin at jabber
> .org
>
>
> 01/04/2002 04:57
> PM
> Please respond to
> jdev
>
>
>
>
>
> Nah, I think they're talking about gzipping all of the data, sending it,
> and ungzipping before sending it to the XML parser on the other side,
> just like SSL works.
>
> Julian
> --
> email: julian at jabber.org
> jabber:julian at jabber.org
>
> Michael F Lin wrote:
>
> > Keep in mind that the gzip data would have to be base64 coded, which
> > would increase its size by 33%. So you can run the statistics and
> > figure out how long your payloads have to be to get better than 33%
> > compression ratios with gzip, but I imagine it is quite long
> > relative to the average since of a Jabber packet
> > (message/presence/iq).
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Adam Theo
> > <adamtheo at theoret To: jdev <jdev at jabber.org>
> > ic.com> cc:
> > Sent by: Subject: [JDEV] GZipping Jabber Messages
> > jdev-admin at jabber
> > .org
> >
> >
> >
> > 01/04/2002 03:32
> > PM
> > Please respond to
> > jdev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi, all. There's a good discussion going on over at the DotGNU
> > Developer list about gzip'ing the XML that is transmitted around on
> > the DotGNU platform.
> >
> > Was wondering if it would be possible to incorporate the same thing
> > for future versions of the Jabber server? Is it feasible, anyway?
> > They are saying the trade-offs for extra resource consumption would
> > not be bad at all if designed into the server properly, and would
> > reduce bandwidth very dramatically (like by 80%, i think). This
> > would be useful for high-volume servers with enough processing
> > power, i think...
_______________________________________________
jdev mailing list
jdev at jabber.org
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
More information about the JDev
mailing list