login to the database server and create a new user with all access to database:. ![]() configure -enable-mysql make make install XMPP (Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol) is a protocol based on Extensible Markup Language ( XML) and intended for instant messaging ( IM) and online presence detectionįirst of all, SSH into your machine and install the required dependencies apt-get update apt-get install make gcc libexpat1-dev libyaml-dev automake libssl-dev erlang build-essential libncurses5-dev openssl zlib1g-dev libgd-dev libwebp-dev fop xsltproc unixodbc-dev -yĭownload Ejabberd 18.01 cd /opt wget -O ejab.tgz tar -xvzf ejab.tgz cd ejabberd-18.01/Ĭonfigure ejabberd. It can run under several Unix-like operating systems such as Mac OS X, GNU/ Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and OpenSolaris. Įjabberd is an XMPP application server, written mainly in the Erlang programming language. Otherwise it's just an unneeded strain on developers.What is Ejabberd - The name stands for Erlang Jabber Daemon. That's generally the case when you have some text with markup, like HTML or for word processor files. Sometimes this is justified, as XML is a really good fit for the data structure of the document. This makes working with XML lots of work. It's just mapping very badly to native data structures in any programming language except xslt. > In the modern world, people are afraid of XML I don't see how this is possible for a p2p messenger protocol. Other messengers often use other verified usernames like phone numbers, that users already have in their contact book. You can easily implement the latter feature also for p2p messenger protocols. Facebook uses a) real names, where you can search somebody with the real name and more importantly uses b) the friends of your friends in suggesting who you could add. Nobody is using the username scheme anymore, because it really sucks. They're there to be able to initiate contact with someone you haven't contacted before. Friends computers that are running could act as bouncers. A model could be that message bouncing servers are run by the app developers. There are two things you need servers for: collecting messages while you're offline and later pushing them to you, having a registration service for a nickname.Īt least the first one doesn't require accounts to be bound to servers at all. Registering is another step hindering usage, Peer to Peer should be the way to go. The server might shut down federation (just like google did). You're locked in to one server with your account. What you clearly forgot were features basically everyone is using today that don't work with XMPP: sending pictures, sending voice messages Those seem like implementation details and not anything intrinsic to the protocol. ![]() > - Regular users don't want to run their own server The problems of standardization (or lack thereof), in their broadest strokes, are never going away. So there will always be operators trying to short-circuit that baggage by introducing new (and often proprietary) services. While it would certainly be nice to have IM standardized like E-mail, telephone calls or IPv4, that comes at the cost of glacial progress forward, and you will be stuck supporting the lowest common denominator for a long time. Interoperability with arbitrary network elements is often the most frustrating and most expensive part of standards implementation.įor federation to be taken as the default, you need critical mass, and no single IM service has ever achieved critical mass. For example, to mitigate abuse, to immediately extend the service with new features, and to have end-to-end control of user experience without concern for interoperability. And those policy decisions are not always made simply to keep users siloed: there can be a sound technical basis for them. Unfortunately, the choice whether or not to federate is often a policy decision, not a technical one. I'm skeptical that there will (or should) ever be "one protocol to rule them all." There is such a diversity of use-cases, anything that delegates its raison d'etre across multiple specs is going to encounter the same flavor of problems that XMPP has.ĭefinitely another desirable property. Of course, there is risk the other way around too: by over-specifying, you constrain your use cases, which may hurt adoption. That is a theoretically desirable technical property, but there is a strong argument to be made that extensibility, and the interoperability issues that result, is the Achilles heel of XMPP.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |