[jdev] Re: help needed to implement a P2P Chat Client

[Michal vorner Vaner]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:28:23PM -0700, Ravi wrote:
> 
> >Are you sure you will save something? Creating the jingle session with
> >someone is a little expensive for the XMPP stream, there are definitely
> >more stanzas that one or two messages sent. And you have to keep the
> >session opened trough NATs, you will be using STUNs of the servers,
> >which is more load on them..
> >
> >I think there will not be much gain in doing the chat P2P. I guess it
> >will be easier for you, and probably cheaper, to buy more servers and
> >have more domains or some cluster of them, than writing this.
> 
> Yes I agree, the concept is unproven. There is a trade off between high 
> initial session start cost vs. no cost during session. I will consider 
> your suggestion. Maybe we will start with non P2P and as the load goes 
> up and we understand the usage statistics, we can considering 
> incorporating P2P in next version of client.
> 
> >Well, connection is not the right word maybe. You need to take care of
> >all resends and flow controls and everything from userspace, which is
> >error-prone. I do not know, if it is already in libjingle (well, I heard
> >something like that will be in next version), but I really do not trust
> >it can possibly work as well as in-kernel TCP stack.
> 
> I was more considering using TCP (port 80) rather than UDP to avoid all 
> these issues you mentioned. I am certainly not going to write networking 
> stack just for a chat client.

Um, that won't go trough NATs, if both sides are NATed.. (if you do not
have NATs, you are lucky and I envy you a lot. That wile creatures are
destroying the Internet).

And, by the way, I would discourage you from using port 80, unless you
intend to use http on that. 80 belongs to http and people expect web
pages to be there, besides, you need (under some systems) administration
rights to bind low ports. If you to that over TCP, choose either some
random (or let the OS give you one) and negotiate it over XMPP, or
choose something that is not used by something such widely used as http.

> I have an idea of what I am up against. As well as little surprised that 
> nobody tried P2P for chat. I will reconsider my options.
> 
> Thanks for help
> Ravi
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
This is a terroristic email. It will explode in 10 minutes, 
if you do not close it in the meantime.

Michal "vorner" Vaner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20060828/15d85f27/attachment-0002.pgp>