[JDEV] Sources trees, CVS, and other ramblings..

["Thomas Charron" <tcharron@nermail.ups.com>]

	Well, I guess my next question would be is if we have any sort of tentative
date for a working server that will use this protocol?  My suggestion would
be to get the transport using it for the client connections first, so anyone
workingon clients can get their act together the fastest..

	Also, I know there was mention of a CVS archive..  How often is it updated
on the server side? Looking at the snaps on jabber.org, it appears to only
be updated every so often.  Also I'd be interested in checking things in
once I have these C++ classes ironed out.  I'm attempting to remove all
dependencies on MFC so that they would be much more cross platform.  (IF
anyone has plugin replacements for CString and CAsyncSocket, Email me, we'll
do lunch!! ;-P)

--
Thomas Charron
United Parcel Service
Northeast Region
IE Software Developer
"Moving at the speed of a T3 Trunk Line!"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-jdev@jabber.org [mailto:owner-jdev@jabber.org]On Behalf Of
> Jeremie
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 6:02 PM
> To: jdev@jabber.org
> Subject: RE: [JDEV] Well-formed XML.(Correction)
>
>
> Originally(and still in the current codebase) it works kind of like what
> you have below, but the <?xml?> headers are implied.
>
> Where I'm heading with what I've been working on is towards a
> communication based on a single document, where each sub-tag is an
> exchange between the client and server.  Technologically, it's not going
> to make a big difference, but it seems that it's easier to understand when
> the protocol "looks" and "acts" like a normal XML document.  Also, with
> the entire communication exchange looking like a big document, it should
> be easiy to whip up a DTD to verify it or just simply define it.
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <jabber type="client" version="Name/OS version/version"
> protocol="19990101">
>   <login>
>     <user>jeremie</user>
>     <pass>Ph0niks</pass>
>     <name>jabalot</name>
>   </login>
>   <status>
>     <say type='online'>This is my status</say>
>     <priority>10</priority>
>     <icon>normal</icon>
>   </status>
> </jabber>
>
> Jer
>
> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Thomas Charron wrote:
>
> > 	A quick correction to something I wrote earlier..  I MEANT if the
> > transactions would look like this:
> >
> >  <?xml version="1.0"?>
> >  <jabber type="client" version="Name/OS version/version"
> >  protocol="19990101">
> >  <login>
> >  	<user>jeremie</user>
> >  	<pass>Ph0niks</pass>
> >  	<name>jabalot</name>
> >  </login>
> >  </jabber>
> >  <?xml version="1.0"?>
> >  <jabber type="client" version="Name/OS version/version"
> >  protocol="19990101">
> >  <status>
> >  	<say type='online'>This is my status</say>
> >  	<priority>10</priority>
> >  	<icon>normal</icon>
> >  </status>
> >  </jabber>
> >
> > (Notice the xml version declerations multiple times..)  If you
> are going to
> > transaction based XML, adding the xml version statment at the
> start of each
> > XML transaction would allow for a greater flexibility in what
> XML parser to
> > use, as many use this as part of validation..
> >
>