Comments on: Is XMPP for the web ready?

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:12:46 +0000

This is the nearest thing I’ve found. The code is available as links to patches on this page, but nowhere could I find it on the jabsorb site or svn. http://groups.google.com/group/jabsorb-user/browse_thread/thread/47a8753888be73d5

By: Howard

Howard — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 06:56:49 +0000

Normally I would agree that integrating a new protocol in the browser is hard. However, I tried this open source project (kaazing.org) awhile back and it seemed like a very compelling solution, but I never got a chance to finish the testing. They claim that they have solved the issue of running a native XMPP client in the browser. Would be great to hear if someone else have tried it out.

By: Dethe Elza

Dethe Elza — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:14:34 +0000

Isn’t the mismatch between XMPP and HTTP their strongest feature? HTTP is a stateless transport protocol, XMPP is a connection-preserving XML routing protocol. They are fundamentally different, have different purposes, different use cases. That said, I would love to see XMPP in the browser. Between the two protocols, that would cover a lot of different
uses. But it is because of their differences that XMPP is
useful, not despite them.

By: Remko Tronçon

Remko Tronçon — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:23:13 +0000

@MikeD: Not sure if it helps, but architectural differences between XMPP and HTTP are described in the upcoming O’Reilly book “XMPP: The Definitive Guide”. The book also links aspects of XMPP to HTTP throughout.

By: MikeD

MikeD — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:22:26 +0000

Is there a good (unbiased) comparison of XMPP and HTTP by someone that knows both very well? There are obviously serious differences, but I’d like an actual list. Things like ‘client initiates connection’ or ‘message correlation outside a socket connection’ or ‘trust between more than two parties’, etc.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:22:06 +0000

http://new.imified.com/developers/api

is the closest thing I know of to a json based xmpp. It’s a shame it is a proprietary service though.

By: Sylvain Hellegouarch

Sylvain Hellegouarch — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:54:23 +0000

Possibly Eric but I doubt XML is the culprit here (mind you a BOSH proxy transforming XML to JSon might be attractive to many). I think there is a strong mismatch between XMPP and HTTP and it makes it rather hard for both to co-exist easily.

By: Eric Larson

Eric Larson — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:50:02 +0000

I’d wonder if there were a JSON based XMPP server/service/whatever whether that might be more palatable to developers. After working with JSON, I’ve become a real fan. It is excellent for data and it seems that XMPP relationship to XML might prevent some folks from getting excited about in programmatic terms (PubSub). This is really a buzzword argument that I’m making without knowing the protocol. But, I am curious if XMPP requires XML at the protocol level or whether that is just the current trend for servers.

By: Sylvain Hellegouarch

Sylvain Hellegouarch — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:59:11 +0000

Brad,

Yes I am. The idea behind LLUP isn’t dead in the sense that it’s all about defining the best format for standalone messages that contain enough information to determine a resource, some boundary dates, geolocalisation and semantic about that resource.

I’ve been trying to combine XMPP/PubSub and AtomPub to transport, index and query those messages but as I suggest in this blog post is that it’s currently difficult to achieve this due the mistmatch between XMPP and HTTP.

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:48:15 +0000

Sylvain, aren’t you involved with a project involving xmpp, atompub and a custom protocol called “LLUP”? Whatever happened to that project ?