Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google, Jabber, and Jingle

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the happy-holidays dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Jabber has published the experimental draft Jingle specs, which extend XMPP for use in voice over IP (VoIP), video, and other peer-to-peer multimedia sessions. Google released an open-source library called 'Libjingle' on SourceForge. Libjingle is a set of components provided by Google that let your programs interoperate with Google Talk's peer-to-peer and voice calling capabilities. The package includes source code for Google's implementation of Jingle and Jingle-Audio."

7 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Spam by HillaryWBush · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Not to be cynical or redundant but they're really, really going to have to implement some kind of user rating system or spam control on the server, because I'm not going to log on to their network just to get a lot of w33n0rp0rn.

    I have the only w33n0r I think I need to see when logging on.

  2. server-to-server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now if google would just implement server-to-server jabber connections, this might be useful!

    1. Re:server-to-server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Someone noted on one of the Google Talk mailing lists that as of the 9th of December Gmail's DNS has contained the SRV record necessary for other Jabber servers to send messages to the talk.google.com server (previously only the SRV record for clients was there), so it looks like it's definitely coming soon.

      Also a beta of GAIM 2.0 is due today supposedly containing support for Jingle-Audio, so it looks like things are really starting to move in the Google Talk/Jabber camp.

  3. Now only if.. by luvirini · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All these instant messagers and voice applications could somehow communicate so would not need to have so many on my computer. Even if the communication was on lowest common denominator, could use the ones I like and atleast communicate somehow with people using others.. oh well.. not likely to happen soon I guess.

  4. Is the format wasting bits? by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Using transcoded XML for binary audio support... I wonder if some bandwidth is wasted just because of the format (XML can't contain random binary data, so there's bit loss). Anyone checked deeper?

  5. Re:I'm not interested... by obender · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Besides, Google hasn't implemented Server-to-Server communication yet for reasons posted elseware in this very article; they don't want spam.

    I don't buy this. Spam in Jabber is much more difficult to achieve (some people say it's impossible but they're probably wrong) and Jabber without server to server is not fully Jabber.

  6. About Time by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IM clients are the obviousplace to strapon VOIP communication. The jabber system would be a perfect VOIP framework. Your "number" will simply be your JabberID. Which is similar to an email address, so it's easy to remember.

    You'll simply dial something like "malda@slashdot.org" to complain to Taco about the preponderance of dupes, and Taco can simply add your address "slashbot@cheapisp.com" to his ignore list.

    If telemarketers become a problem, some kind of del.ico.us system might enable VOIP users to share a list of banned domains or addresses. Potential for abuse etc, etc.

    Key point here is that a system based on "email" like addresses would be batter and easier to remember than the current telecoms number based system.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!