JabberHTTPBind 1.1.1

A quick one: Just uploaded JabberHTTPBind 1.1.1. It contains a little fix for a problem with connections using DNS SRV records (like connecting to gmail.com).

6 Responses to JabberHTTPBind 1.1.1


Comments

  1. Comment by Madhuri Patwardhan | 2009/01/09 at 06:11:57

    Hi Steve,

    This was the last correspondence we had about a bug in JabberHttpBind, in March 2008.

    ******************************************************************
    #
    Steve Kommentar by Steve | 2008/04/23 at 10:44:23

    Madhuri, you’re totally right, this is a bug. Access to session objects needs to be synchronized at this point. Guess I’ll have to rework this… (explains some strange behavior I’ve been noticing)

    *******************************************************************

    Any update on session object synchronization? I would appreciate if you could let me know status of this one.

    Thanks,
    Madhuri

  2. Comment by Steve | 2009/01/14 at 21:11:44

    Madhuri, I’m very sorry, I still haven’t fixed this issue. Unfortunately I’m still very busy with other things (“all work and no play …”). I’ll do my best to fix this ASAP.
    Cheers, -Steve

  3. Comment by Maty | 2009/08/01 at 21:11:52

    Speaking of concurrency and clocking threads, is there a special reason why not to use ConcurrentHashMap instead of Hashtable for storing the sessions?

  4. Comment by Steve | 2009/09/22 at 08:54:38

    Maty, besides I don’t know ConcurrentHashMap I’m pretty sure there isn’t 🙂

  5. Comment by Sachin Khandelwal | 2010/09/11 at 07:58:18

    The connection between the JHB and XMPP Server timedout in some time if its idle. Is there any way or configuration setting to disable the timeout property.

    There is no svn tag for version JabberHTTPBind-1.1.1. Can you plz create tag for this version. So that we can checkout the latest released src.

  6. Comment by Steve | 2010/09/15 at 11:28:35

    Sachin, there’s no timeout defined between JHB and the XMPP server. Sorry!

    Also I forgot to tag the latest release. My fault. I guess the tag should be applied at revision r65, but I’m not sure about this. If you want the lastest code just check out trunk, there’s nothing bad about it.


Comments are closed