XSF logo IoT SIG - 2020-01-15


  1. Vaulor has joined
  2. Vaulor has left
  3. Vaulor has joined
  4. Tobi has joined
  5. Alacer has left
  6. Alacer has joined
  7. Alacer has left
  8. COM8 has joined
  9. COM8 debacle, yes I can hear you. I just don't use MUCs on mobile only on my PC
  10. COM8 has left
  11. COM8 has joined
  12. COM8 has left
  13. Alacer has joined
  14. Alacer has left
  15. Alacer has joined
  16. Alacer has left
  17. debacle has joined
  18. Alacer has joined
  19. Alacer has left
  20. debacle has left
  21. Alacer has joined
  22. debacle has joined
  23. nightmare has joined
  24. nightmare has left
  25. nightmare has joined
  26. Alacer has left
  27. Alacer has joined
  28. nightmare has left
  29. Alacer has left
  30. Alacer has joined
  31. Alacer has left
  32. jjrh someone wrote a esp8266/arduino library for XMPP didn't they?
  33. debacle Interesting: A paper compared AMQP, MQTT, XMPP, and ZeroMQ. Result: > Our conclusion therefore is twofold: We recommend ZeroMQ where a specifically tailored solution is needed and the effort of implementing missing features is acceptable. For settings where a readily available solution is necessary, we recommend MQTT or AMQP, depending on the expected message sizes, as there are several open source software solutions that can be used out of the box. ("Meeting IoT Platform Requirements with Open Pub/Sub Solutions", 2016) flow MattJ
  34. debacle has left
  35. MattJ Reasoning against XMPP?
  36. MattJ I've never actually been convinced that XMPP is interchangeable with AMQP
  37. jjrh AMQP seems drastically different than XMPP in terms of usecase and functionality
  38. MattJ Yep
  39. MattJ But people always lump them together because "pubsub"
  40. debacle has joined
  41. debacle I just found it funny, that they put four protocols in the title, but only three in the conclusion.
  42. Tobi has left
  43. debacle has left
  44. debacle has joined
  45. debacle has left
  46. debacle has joined