[jdev] XMPP Ping/Keepalive: Recommended method ?

[JD Conley]

Yup. An empty presence has just as much impact/meaning (aside from
network utilization and obviously some processing time) as one with
status information or other payload data.

 

-JD

 

From: jdev-bounces at jabber.org [mailto:jdev-bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf
Of ennova2005-jabber at yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:48 PM
To: Jabber software development list
Subject: Re: [jdev] XMPP Ping/Keepalive: Recommended method ?

 

Even with an empty presence payload like <presence /> ?


p.s  Answering below quoted text  is similarly annoying for people with
mobile email clients where only the first X bytes are retrieved by
default ;-)

----- Original Message ----
From: Maciek Niedzielski <machekku at uaznia.net>
To: Jabber software development list <jdev at jabber.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 4:54:14 PM
Subject: Re: [jdev] XMPP Ping/Keepalive: Recommended method ?

ennova2005-jabber at yahoo.com wrote:
> Assuming (for legacy reasons), the only injection point available in
> the code for this uni-directional "keepalive" is a message or
> presence packet, how "bad" is it to send a <presence /> to the server
> (vs. say a jabber:iq:version or jabber:iq:time) ?

- From user's point of view: I remember a friend writing a bot some time
ago and sending presence every 10 minutes. The result was a popup in my
client, every 10 minutes.

- --
Maciek                       A: It's against natural order of reading.
xmpp:machekku at uaznia.net   Q: Why is that?
xmpp:machekku at chrome.pl   A: People answering above quoted text.
                          Q: What's the most annoying on newsgroups?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20060622/30adb7a0/attachment-0002.htm>