jdev - 2024-09-11

  1. Schimon

    > I wish that were supported. Using TCP on localhost is silly I think so, too. Using HTTP when it can be avoided is worrying to me. I am using Unix/Bsd sockets for IPC with my bots. ↺

  2. Schimon

    That is, supposing TCP is related to HTTP in that context.

  3. singpolyma

    > That is, supposing TCP is related to HTTP in that context. It's not 🙂 ↺

  4. Schimon

    Then ignore my consent. I meant to HTTP. I hope my argument is still valid or in context. ✎

  5. Schimon

    > It's not 🙂 Then ignore my consent. I meant to HTTP. I hope my argument is still valid or in context. ✏ ↺

  6. Schimon

    > It's not 🙂 Then ignore my consent. I meant to HTTP on localhost instead of Unix sockets. I hope my argument is still valid or in context. ✏ ↺

  7. singpolyma

    To be fair I shouldn't have said TCP that's the wrong layer. I meant INET vs Unix domain sockets

  8. moparisthebest

    Network layers are a lie anyway :)

  9. singpolyma

    Not in this case since you speak TCP over a Unix socket if you want

  10. Zash

    I feel like there's some special treatment of loopback connections anyway, different performance characteristics than TCP over even very fast networks.

  11. singpolyma

    For sure, but assigning port numbers is annoying and as mentioned permissions are never to work with on domain sockets ✎

  12. singpolyma

    For sure, but assigning port numbers is annoying and as mentioned permissions are nicer to work with on domain sockets ✏

  13. moparisthebest

    Zash: would you consider adding support to prosody for this? 😁

  14. moparisthebest

    Ideally accepting component but also c2s+s2s

  15. edhelas

    Can't wait for XMPP over UDP

  16. singpolyma

    moparisthebest has that 😂

  17. moparisthebest

    We all do 😜 you don't already support XMPP over QUIC edhelas ?!?!?!?

  18. edhelas

    do I yes, woperfectly rks 👌

    🤣 1