[Sugar-devel] #2963 UNSP: Sugar telepathy code does not take into account presence status of buddies

[Sameer Verma]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Aleksey Lim
<alsroot at activitycentral.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 01:34:21PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> On 16 July 2011 12:44, Aleksey Lim <alsroot at activitycentral.org> wrote:
>> > Since jabber.sl.o is targeiting for dev use cases and the fact that
>> > everyday resetting (/usr/share/ejjaberd) ejabberd data is not enough to
>> > prevent kernel killing apps due to lack of memory, I installed prosody
>> > for jabber.sl.o. Both events were announced on sugar-devel at .
>>
>> I must have missed the announcements then. Apologies. (I still can't
>> find them after searching the archives)
>
> hmm, it seems to be in school server related threads and not all posts
> are on ML, sorry then. Though, in my mind jabber.sl.o was in semi-productoin
> state (after not working for a couple of weeks and every day crashes)
> and I wasn't thinking about announcing its development process except
> urgent maitaining cases. So, it is a good reason to start doing that.
>
>> I am in full support of experimenting with alternative jabber
>> implementations, I think that's great and am excited by your work. I
>> just don't think you should do it so quietly, uncollaboratively, and
>> on the server that sugar connects to by default.
>>
>> I also think that your arguments against ejabberd are shallow and
>> uninformed - suggesting that it can't handle thousands of users just
>> shows ignorance in the face of the large ejabberd servers that are out
>> their in production.
>
> you missed my words about sugar server workflow (it is exactly targeting
> to up to 1K users by design), and that amount of users is ok for
> jabber.sl.o as well (we don't hanve more than 30-40 online users there).
>
>> I know it can be hard to get to grips with the
>> unconventional design, but time and code investment in solving the
>> issues that you are facing with ejabberd would be a much less
>> intrusive fix for our existing users. (not that I want to discourage
>> experimentation with alternative servers which of course may turn out
>> to be better in the long run. it may even be less mind-boggling, which
>> would be great.)
>
> once more, prosody related work started exactly for limited usecase
> (1K users and as less maintaning as possible, both reasons ok for
> current jabber.sl.o), and I don't see any reasons why not having tools
> (that are work best-of-all) for one particular use case and having
> several of them for <1K (prosody) and >1K (ejabberd).
>

I don't see the point in having two different server implementations
for two different use cases, where the only difference is volume. If
ejabberd works for > 1K, it should be a good candidate for < 1K as
well. I have ejabberd running on a XO-1 via XS 0.6 (running on a class
6 SD card) and for a small pool of users (25 to 30) it works just
fine.

cheers,
Sameer

>
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>
> --
> Aleksey
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
>