[sip-comm] about SIP/SIMPLE ..


#1

hi Emil,

thanks for your reply. I understand more now.

btw, may I share my experience on SIP-communicator with u?

something in my heart I would like to point out. just want to feedback to you friends sincerely. pls dun mind.

1) initialy, I was very confused with both projects hosted at java.net bcos from Java.net's Projects > communications > voip , there is only one project called "sip-communicator", not "1-0 draft" , perhaps, java.net has a pretty bad in usuablity, that is part of the fault too.... putting "sip-communicator-1-0-draft" as a subproject of "sip-communicator" will cause another ? too. i may suggest a BIG message right at the front page to notify people that which is the new one, and which is the old one, clearly side by side.

2) from java.net's CVS , there are both "sip-communicator", "sip-communicator-1-0-draft". my first expectation is that 1-0-draft would be the old one, so I has simply ignored it for the past few months. Perhaps, "sip-communicator-1-0-draft", should be named as "sip-communicator 2.0-draft" instead, since it is totally redesigned. that will be much clearer for a not-so-smart person like me :slight_smile:

i believe, this frustration may turn many new users and developers away from the interest of this project, seriously.

these are my sincere feedbacks.. hope that I can contribute something to this project too. thanks.

-~manchi

···

On 2006-05-12 17:53:27 +0800, Emil Ivov <emil.ivov- Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> said:

Hello Man-Chi

Man-Chi Leung wrote:
sip-communicator.org is very lovely. thanks for all the hard work.

Thank you for your support!

there is something that I am not sure. pls forgive my ignorance:

The problem is indeed quite frustrating so you could hardly call it
ignorance :).

sip-communitor seems to be the most popular as a SIPUA client but i realise that the implementation of SIP/SIMPLE is not in pre-release

The implementation of SIP _is_ meant to be in the first pre-release.
It's just that work on porting it from pre1.0 code has not yet started.

1. instead of that, ICQ is done as in a higher priority.

I very really curious to know the rationale behind. is there any special reason? pls advise.

Then new OSGI architecture requires a unified interface to all imp and
telephony protocols. That's the ProtocolProviderService in SIP
Communicator. We needed to design that service in a way that would be
good enough to encapsulate all or at least most of the widely used
telephony and IMP protocols in a way that would require little or no
modification later. We decided to develop the service itself together
with its first implementation. The most obvious choice was of course
using SIP as the first service to implement.

Then we thought that SIP has really poor support for instant messaging
and especially for presence and that it would not be a very smart thing
to mold the whole ProtocolProviderService around it. On the other hand
we already had the experience with telephony from the previous versions
and we felt confident that we could preview whatever was necessary for
telephony without implementing it in the same time. We therefore decided
to first implement a real instant messaging protocol in order to shape
the IMP part of the proto service and then come back to SIP.

We chose ICQ simply because most of the developers are using it and we
wanted to be able and use the SIP Communicator as soon as possible in
our daily activities.

We're more or less done with icq now. I have something non sip-comm
related to take care of these days and will start work on SIP right
after that.

Does this answer your question?

Emil

~manchi

---------------------------------------------------------------------
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe-e4b6q1WrAvqNT/shq6UTL0xKC0JgDi2LF4cvauC391I@public.gmane.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help-e4b6q1WrAvqNT/shq6UTL0xKC0JgDi2LF4cvauC391I@public.gmane.org