On Wed Feb 17 15:38:19 2010, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Peter Saint-Andre
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Also while travelling yesterday I updated the old distributed MUC
proposal:
> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/distributedmuc.html
My promised comments:
There's another approach to this, discussed by Dave Cridland and
myself offlist, which is interesting.
What's quite amusing is that Kev and I discussed this on the Eurostar
toward Brussels, just as Peter was scribbling his protoXEP in an
airport loungue on a journey to the same place.
Coincidence? I think so.
Dave will probably now explain how we discussed something entirely
different and better.
I think you've captured it, but the key thing is that Peter's idea is
to have an IRC-like structure, where a room is conceptually shared
between trusted servers by an agreement, whereas in our model,
routing is delegated whereas control is not.
Now in principle, this means that both could co-exist - that is, the
KD-style master could turn out to be a PSA-style mesh of trusted
servers, and the KD-style slave need be none the wiser. (Just as the
KD-style master can *also* be a KD-style slave).
Another distinction between the two approaches is what the core aims
are - in PSA-style, it's to provide resilience between servers,
whereas in KD-style, it's largely to reduce redundant message traffic
from being repeated redundantly repeated.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
