<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12"> <TITLE>RE: [JDEV] JavaJabber Server Docs</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> I'd have to agree with Iain. I think it would be good to see how two different implementations solved the problem of implementing the common protocol/features.  However, it would be nice if one group got stuck on a design problem and they could look at how it was solved by the other group. > --- Jay Lorenzo <jlorenzo@uswest.net> wrote: > > One thing I'd like to throw out here is the possibility of using a > > common > > design with the Jabelin folks. I think we may be best served by > > participating in the design process with the Jabelin folks, which I > > believe > > is just starting this process. We may want to consider > having a 'subsig' > > under Jabelin, using an 'org.jabber' namespace. > > I actually think it would better serve the Jabber > community if the two servers were developed > independently.  One of the more interesting things > I'd be looking for is what is implementaton specific > and what is standard Jabber.  This has been > exceedingly difficult to determine with just jabberd. > Something very different in implmentation could be > extremely useful... > > -iain   </BODY> </HTML>