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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: KDE Jabber Library
From:       Martijn Klingens <klingens () kde ! org>
Date:       2002-08-04 17:47:36
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sunday 04 August 2002 18:53, Dominique Devriese wrote:
> Martijn Klingens <klingens@kde.org> writes:
> > Sure, Psi is a bit more mature, but Kopete isn't that far off. And
> > offers a
> > whole lot of other options that make it IMSNHO far more usable.
>
> Could you give some examples of that last statement ?

Support for a single shared address book and soon the KDE address book, and 
support for other widley-used protocols to name the two most prominent. Each 
alone makes Kopete for me beat Jabber-only hands down, even for communication 
between KDE apps, without user interaction. Not to mention those two 
combined...

> Btw.  Jabber has some nice features too.  The fact that it's XML
> and open allows you to send special messages that aren't strictly
> "messages" as in chit-chat.  If you want to do that over something
> like ICQ, you have to invent something like MIME for IM which allows
> you to encapsulates different types of messages.  Of course, there's
> not much hope that MS or AOL would adopt KDE's extensions, so you're
> doing non-standard stuff and no longer interoperable..
> Or am i missing something here ?

Yes. You're more interoperable instead of 'no longer', since you use the 
already existing IM infrastructure as transport protocol. Whatever you 
transport over a given IM protocol is application dependent. It can be 
chit-chat, it can be an invitation, and what more. It's two different layers. 
Trying to combine the transport and the data in a single-protocol solution is 
for me the wrong approach, but of course you're allowed to have a different 
opinion.

> > And the fact that those bridges often don't work because the
> > bridging server
> > is blocked by another protocol's server, yes.
>
> Don't the Kopete plugins suffer from those practices too ?

No, because they use the protocol's native servers, so it's hard to block 
them, unlike a single Jabber bridge that can be blocked rather easily to 
block a whole truckload of users in a single step.

Martijn

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