Comment by jjuliano | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjuliano | Hacker News Reader

The problem with XMPP is that it requires several open ports (5222, 5223, 5269, 5298, 8010) on the client, on the technical and practical standpoint the reason why XMPP is unpopular to big players because many businesses won't be bothered to open their ports, now if you are a solutions provider creating software for XMPP solutions for those companies, the most viable solution is to use BOSH to direct XMPP traffic to port 80, but there's another big problem, the only available BOSH library is a GPL BOSH library that you would license in order for you to not to ship your software along with it's source-code. Now if you can do the same thing over HTTP 1.1 stream, why bother with XMPP?

* The problem with XMPP is that it requires several open ports (5222, 5223, 5269, 5298, 8010) on the client.*

XMPP does not require any open ports on a client.

On the server, I mean.

source: I'm an ex-cofounder of a now very successful syncing solution startup who uses XMPP and I wrote the initial server and client code.

I have no idea where you got the idea about binding all (any) of those listening ports on the client, but that is incorrect.

anecdotally:

  % lsof -i4 -T s
  COMMAND   PID USER   FD   TYPE             DEVICE 
  imagent   158   mh    6u  IPv4 0x2969ca78b2e9b6bb      0t0  TCP mac:52812->pb-in-f125.1e100.net:5223 (ESTABLISHED)

authoritatively:

http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/SRV_Records#Ports

* On the server.

Why not? The same applies to running an HTTP or email server, which many businesses do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com