[JDEV] Keep-Alives

[Tijl Houtbeckers]

Matthias Wimmer <m at tthias.net> wrote: 

>Hi Tijl!
>
>Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
>
>>>TCP keep-alives aren't and won't be needed by the Jabber protocol. It 
>>>just solves some problems we have with TCP. Therefore we only need it 
>>>with TCP.
>>>    
>>Well, it's a problem in manny connection oriented enviroment, not just TCP/IP.. if 
we 
>>start using keepalive will people say: we've got the solution now, so why bother on 
>>making something on the jabber protocol level (or support it)? 
>>
>What sort of connection do you think of? AFAIK we don't have other 
>connections then TCP/IP and TCP/IPv6 for Jabber at the moment.

I've been playing around with jabber over a bluetooth link a bit.. l
with that I mean over bluetooth, not TCP/IP over bluetooth or anything like that. The 
same concept can be applied to a serial link (though I wouldn't know any use for that 
off the top of my head). It's not a very big issue though in this implementation.

>>I suppose my worries were a bit overstated, keepalives sound like a good solution 
>>(should they be opt-in or opt-out?). I hope they won't screw up my GPRS links but I 
>>don't think so.. I doubt there that manny implementations of jabber over something 
>>else as TCP/IP anyway, we'll just have to cross that bridge when we get there..
>>
>I would vote for opt-out because they don't break any client and many 
>clients can profit by it. It will work with TCP/IP over GPRS the same 
>way as with TCP/IP over Ethernet, PPP, HDLC, Bluetooth or any other 
>protocol beneath IP or IPv6.

TCP/IP over GPRS quees TCP/IP packets if the link is temporarily down. It does 
however do some lowlevel TCP/IP handeling, wich I think would be sufficiant for 
keepalives. My vote would be to make opt-in opt-out at least server configarable.

-- 
Tijl Houtbeckers
JAVA/J2ME/GPRS Programmer @ Splendo