31–40 of 41 posts
The use of 'recently' made me do a bit of double take.
http://slashdot.org/story/05/12/16/070245/google-jabber-and-...
"Google and XMPP have recently added a draft extension to the protocol called Jingle, which enables voice over IP and video conferencing." The use of 'recently' made me do a bit of double take. http://slashdot.org/story/05/12/16/070245/google-jabber-and-...
Around the time I actually wrote the article (many months before it was originally published in .net magazine) there had just been a libjingle release and I was told at the time it was a new thing to have this available to 3rd party developers.
For the Node.js developers in the discussion, I've been hacking away on [Junction]( https://github.com/jaredhanson/junction ) in my spare moments. I've long been fascinated with XMPP, because it is so flexible. Rather than focusing solely on a specific purpose (like IM), Junction exposes a middleware framework similar to Express so that you can develop applications on top of XMPP. I've been happy with the approach, a…
It might also interest Node.js developers to know that this article was written as part of a tutorial on writing a Google Chat bot with Node.js. To see part one of the article please see the following Hacker News post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5175913
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adoption. That is one of the main reasons why most people won't mind paying for whatsapp ; almost everyone on their contacts list already uses the app and frankly most people don't know or care much about whatsapp's security measures.
None of my contacts use it, so I can't say anything about adoption. But if someone needs to use an IM network - there are good XMPP services. Simply invite your friends to any federated XMPP server and you have an interoperable way to communicate with them.
I can't even get my friends to click invitation links to pre-baked apps.
"Google and XMPP have recently added a draft extension to the protocol called Jingle, which enables voice over IP and video conferencing." The use of 'recently' made me do a bit of double take. http://slashdot.org/story/05/12/16/070245/google-jabber-and-...
The feature is still draft and only made version 1 in June 2009 ( http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0166.html ). I don't actually track changes in XMPP so I am open to correction on this point. Around the time I actually wrote the article (many months before it was originally published in .net magazine) there had just been a libjingle release and I was told at the time it was a new thing to have this available to 3rd pa…
(It doesn't matter, but I also raised an eyebrow and started looking for the date on the blog entry when I read that sentence.)
I'm looking at you, WhatsApp, iMessage and all others.
I never fully understood why everybody is using XMPP in walled gardens (e.g. Whatsapp, Facebook, Messages...). Do you think they get anything from that? Is any of those services monetized successfully?
Seemly Whatsapp is, and what they are doing is genius, I would pay even more for the service than what they are charging (99 cents year). At first I did not understood, what it had in special, until I figured that it was the fact that it used your phone contact list, thus taking out the boring task of managing that, and making adding people to your list easy as finding someone phone number. Yet, I would not use it as…
Disclaimer: I work at Tango.
What I've really wanted to figure out for awhile now is how XMPP might work as a replacement for email. Even as new IMAP or Gmail clients appear on the market seemingly every few months now, I can't shake the idea that it's time for a new protocol, alas an impossibly tall order. Yet XMPP seems like the closest thing to an existing, modern standard to build upon. Am I tilting at windmills, or is there any validity to…
The core support for the concept of presence in XMPP is also pretty compelling -- especially in remote collaboration settings, where transparency around another person's comings and goings can significantly reduce conversation friction.
That being said, the current XMPP protocol, even including the large set of approved protocol extensions, still falls very short of what would be needed for it to serve as a viable email replacement. As others in this thread have mentioned, the core protocol doesn't include any specification for how to handle messages directed to offline users, and while XEPs have been developed to address this, implementations still vary widely between implementations. Limited by the structure of JIDs, the protocol extension for multi-user chat ends up being a clumsy hack. It looks like there are also problems with large binary data transfer (see http://metajack.im/2008/06/10/binary-data-is-xmpps-achilles-...).
Obviously, a lot of these problems can be resolved with additional protocol extensions, but this risks creating a hodgepodge of conflicting standards and generating a menagerie of different implementations before drafts are settled on. The fact that the core XMPP RFC makes no allowance for offline messages, which is essentially the core of email, makes me think it might be unwise to try to hot-swap the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of my contacts use it, so I can't say anything about adoption. But if someone needs to use an IM network - there are good XMPP services. Simply invite your friends to any federated XMPP server and you have an interoperable way to communicate with them.
"Simply invite your friends to any federated XMPP server..." I can't even get my friends to click invitation links to pre-baked apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The feature is still draft and only made version 1 in June 2009 ( http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0166.html ). I don't actually track changes in XMPP so I am open to correction on this point. Around the time I actually wrote the article (many months before it was originally published in .net magazine) there had just been a libjingle release and I was told at the time it was a new thing to have this available to 3rd pa…
libjingle has been around for years; Wikipedia says December 2005. (It doesn't matter, but I also raised an eyebrow and started looking for the date on the blog entry when I read that sentence.)
This is quite a mess.