<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [jdev] Facebook XMPP</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>I’m responded to that question many times in the Ignite Realtime forums. To date I’ve never had one confused end user. Either way, don’t use it if you don’t like it.<BR>
<BR>
Daniel<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 5/22/08 2:25 PM, "Sander Devrieze" <<a href="s.devrieze@pandora.be">s.devrieze@pandora.be</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>2008/5/22 Maciek Niedzielski <<a href="machekku@uaznia.net">machekku@uaznia.net</a>>:<BR>
> Sander Devrieze wrote:<BR>
>><BR>
>> 2008/5/22 Daniel Henninger <<a href="Daniel.Henninger@jivesoftware.com">Daniel.Henninger@jivesoftware.com</a>>:<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> xmpp<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Since such a thing does exist. =) I'm actually also using gtalk, but I<BR>
>>> don't really think that ought to be officially registered. *shrug* =)<BR>
>><BR>
>> Yes, why do you actually have such a transport? AFAICS this only can<BR>
>> confuse people, or am I wrong and are there good reasons to have it?<BR>
><BR>
> That's for poor clients like Coccinella that doesn't support multiple<BR>
> accounts ;)<BR>
<BR>
No, that's not what I mean. The Openfire Gateway thing includes a<BR>
separate transport instance for Google Talk, besides XMPP. So people<BR>
see in the list "XMPP Transport" *and* "Google Talk Transport". I<BR>
don't see why it is useful to have this kind of duplication...but<BR>
maybe there is a reason for that?<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Mvg, Sander Devrieze.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>