formating
This commit is contained in:
parent
ed2fbd1c04
commit
8cb0427d88
|
@ -8,8 +8,7 @@ which make the life on mobile devices a lot easier but states that they are
|
|||
currently very few implementations of those XEPs. So I went ahead and
|
||||
implemented all of them in my Android XMPP client.
|
||||
|
||||
General observations
|
||||
--------------------
|
||||
###General observations
|
||||
The first thing I noticed is that XMPP is actually okish designed. If you were
|
||||
to design a new chat protocol today you probably wouldn’t choose XML again
|
||||
however the protocol basically consists of only three different packages which
|
||||
|
@ -17,8 +16,7 @@ are quickly hidden under some sort of abstraction layer within your library.
|
|||
Getting from zero to sending messages to other users actually was very simple
|
||||
and straight forward. But then came the XEPs.
|
||||
|
||||
Multi-User Chat
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
###Multi-User Chat
|
||||
The first one was XEP-0045 Multi-User Chat. This is the one XEP of the XEPs I’m
|
||||
going to mention in my article which is actually wildly adopted. Most clients
|
||||
and servers I know of support MUC. However the level of completeness varies.
|
||||
|
@ -36,8 +34,7 @@ userMobile but just user. Both ejabberd and prosody support this but with
|
|||
strange side effects. prosody for example doesn’t allow a user to change its
|
||||
name once two clients are “merged” by having the same nick.
|
||||
|
||||
Carbons and Stream Management
|
||||
-----------------------------
|
||||
###Carbons and Stream Management
|
||||
Two of the other XEPs Lukas’ mentions - Carbons (XEP-0280) and Stream Management
|
||||
(XEP-0198) - were actually fairly easy to implement. The only challenges were to
|
||||
find a server to support them (I ended up running my own prosody server) and a
|
||||
|
@ -47,8 +44,7 @@ mobile device. I had sessions running for up to 24 hours with a walking outside,
|
|||
loosing mobile coverage for a few minutes and so on. The only limitation was
|
||||
that I had to keep on developing and reinstalling my app.
|
||||
|
||||
Off the record
|
||||
--------------
|
||||
###Off the record
|
||||
And then came OTR... This is were I spend the most time debugging stuff and
|
||||
trying to get things right and compatible with other clients. This is the part
|
||||
were I want to help other developers not to make the same mistakes and maybe
|
||||
|
@ -77,17 +73,15 @@ honor the private tag on outgoing messages. While this is easily fixed I presume
|
|||
that having both the private and the no-copy tag will make it more compatible
|
||||
with servers or clients I don’t know about yet)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
####Rules to follow when implementing OTR
|
||||
To summarize my observations on implementing OTR in XMPP let me make the
|
||||
following three statements.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. While it is good practice for unencrypted messages to be send to the raw jid
|
||||
and have the receiving server or user decide how they should be routed OTR
|
||||
messages must be send to a specific resource. To make this work the user should
|
||||
be given the option to select the presence (which can be assisted with some
|
||||
educated guessing by the client based on previous messages).
|
||||
|
||||
Furthermore a client should encourage a user to choose meaningful presences
|
||||
instead of the clients name or even random ones. Something like /mobile,
|
||||
/notebook, /desktop is a greater assist to any one who wants to start an otr
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue