I managed to get the basic in-band bytestream file transfers working. It still doesn’t have any user interface, that’s depending on a project by my mentor. For now, it’s simply triggered by a hardcoded target JID that gets a file transfer when it sends a presence.
After finishing the proof of concept, I added some error handling and did some code cleanup. With that done, I did some interoperability testing. With Gajim, the file transfers now worked well, so I moved on to test with Conversations. Here, something funny happened, my Dino code sent (abbreviated for brevity):
<iq type='set'> <jingle action='session-initiate'> <content> <description xmlns='urn:xmpp:jingle:apps:file-transfer:5'> … </description> <transport xmlns='urn:xmpp:jingle:transports:ibb:1' block-size='4096' /> </content> </jingle> </iq>
And Conversations responded:
<iq type='set'> <jingle action='session-accept'> <content> <description xmlns='urn:xmpp:jingle:apps:file-transfer:5'> … </description> <transport xmlns='urn:xmpp:jingle:transports:s5b:1'> <candidate host='188.8.131.52' type='proxy' jid='proxy.jabber.ccc.de' port='5224' /> </transport> </content> </jingle> </iq>
In essence, my Dino code asked to open a Jingle session for a file transfer,
using in-band-bytestreams as the transport. Then, Conversations responded that
it accepts my offer of Socks 5-based Jingle transport for the file transfer,
accepting an offer I didn’t make. I think this is a violation of the Jingle
XEP (XEP-0166): If the other party
wants to negotiate a different transport, it should probably use the
transport-replace Jingle action. I created an issue
which was quickly resolved. I have yet to test the fix, I don’t have a
development setup for Conversations yet.
The in-band bytestream file transfers I tested were quite slow (<2KB/s), probably some rate-limiting of the servers, I didn’t investigate furtherly.