[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       jabber-jdev
Subject:    Re: [jdev] XEP174 with DHT? (serverless jabber)
From:       "Michael Schmidt" <schmidtm524 () googlemail ! com>
Date:       2007-10-23 15:49:38
Message-ID: 5cc93d950710230849v12f9b38doa1e7ce2d0561e336 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hello Kevin, thanks for the feedback, I am just interested in research
and found the 2 serverless descriptions for xep 174.
I quoted the psi-list and merged the quotations together. You wrote
"THERE is a serverless xep 174.." and before that chapter is quoted,
*I* added, "IF .. there is a serverless jabber".
There is no client till now, implementing serverless jabber, so IF is
questionable for the technical side, HOW to do it. so it is not quite
clear.
As I am not the one with the idea of jabber 2 for serverless, the
question is who to find the buddy in the next online session. A DHT is
the best solution and it was suggested to proove that in the
discussion with the writers of XEP 174.
There are many IP messengers out,  but with not answering the
question, who to find the buddy in the next online session XEP 174 is
a nonsense or STUB or whatever..
So my questions: Has ony client already started with XEP 174
implementation and *if*, how  is the finding of the friends solved
technically? and if not, is this a topic for elaborating XEP 174 with
a DHT? Which one? or is that not a question for the implementers and
protocol designers?

Kind Regards and sorry if there was a misunderstunding. Mike.
PS: yes, I had a point, which is: OpenOffice needs a Email client
(evolution or thunderbird). But that is another thing.
PS2: I think a good development is made out of commitment, why waiting
until somone is first with a buggy YEP 174 implementation, if the
finding of the buddy could be made clear in the process before on the
list of jabber development?


2007/10/23, Kevin Smith <kevin@kismith.co.uk>:
> <snip>
>
> You've taken conversation which happened on the Psi list and posted
> it here, which I don't object to too much. However, you've also
> edited what I said in that list to suit your purpose, actively adding
> things which I didn't say and that is something I really do object to.
>
>
> /K
>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]