status of libjingle

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

Just wondering - is libjingle a separate reusable project these days?

third_party/libjingle/README.chromium points to http://code.google.com/p/webrtc/

In fact, https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/+/master shows a talk subdirectory there.

Now what's interesting is that https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/+/master/webrtc/libjingle/ seems to be yet another, different thing.

It seems this has evolved somewhat organically, and moving code around would also have its costs.

Just curious though, to give you some specific questions:

1. Do you consider libjingle a separate project, a reusable library?

2. If not, how about just merging it fully into webrtc? I might eventually have some cycles for that at some point, just wondering whether it'd make sense.

3. https://code.google.com/p/libjingle/ seems to be outdated (last commits are from 2013). What are the plans about that website, especially in context of Google Code turndown?

Paweł

[Ryan Sleevi]

+juberti +jiayl

--
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromi...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-dev

[Thiago Farina]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Ryan Sleevi <rsl...@chromium.org> wrote:

+juberti +jiayl

On Apr 1, 2015 6:01 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajd...@chromium.org> wrote:

Just wondering - is libjingle a separate reusable project these days?

third_party/libjingle/README.chromium points to http://code.google.com/p/webrtc/

In fact, https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/+/master shows a talk subdirectory there.

There is also a bug filed for this https://code.google.com/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=4256

 

But I'm sure there are more details somewhere else.

--

Thiago Farina

[Sergey Ulanov]

+pthatcher

libjingle is being merged to webrtc, while some parts are also deprecated. The plan is to remove all code from webrtc/libjingle eventually, after all code that depends on it is cleaned up.

--

[Peter Thatcher]

Good questions.  Here are some answers:

1. Do you consider libjingle a separate project, a reusable library?

The code in webrtc/libjingle is already practically separate from the rest of webrtc/.  It includes an implementation of XMPP and Jingle, and WebRTC does not use it.  I would have deleted it already, except that some parts of Chrome (chromoting and chromesync) are using it, and I didn't want to break them.  We did have some vague plan to put a copy somewhere before deleting it, but we may just tag a certain version in the WebRTC repository as the last copy of libjingle.

2. If not, how about just merging it fully into webrtc? I might eventually have some cycles for that at some point, just wondering whether it'd make sense.

For the parts of libjingle other than what is already separated into webrtc/libjingle, the plan is to merge them, and it's already partially merged.  For example webrtc/p2p came from libjingle.  The only thing left to do is move all the the parts in talk/ into webrtc/.  It's on our Q2 OKRs to do so.  At that point, they will completely merged (other than the webrtc/libjingle directory, which should be deleted).

3. https://code.google.com/p/libjingle/ seems to be outdated (last commits are from 2013). What are the plans about that website, especially in context of Google Code turndown?

If it gets deleted by the Google Code turndown, I don't think that's a problem.  It's basically just an old copy saying "go to WebRTC to find the latest".  I suppose if we delete webrtc/libjingle, we should probably update that to say "go to WebRTC tag XXXX to find the latest".

If you have spare cycles, there are two things that would help a lot:

1.  Put webrtc/libjingle somewhere and remove it from the repository (which may require moving chromoting and chromesync to the new locations)

2.  Move all the directories inside of talk/ into webrtc/.  

If we did those two things, WebRTC would be fully merged with the non-XMPP parts of libjingle and the XMPP-specific parts of libjingle would live on separately.  We plan to work on #2 this quarter, but #1 isn't a high priority for us right now.

Does that clear things up?

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Justin Uberti <jub...@google.com> wrote:

+Peter to comment on our plans here