Updated: fixed all the links, sorry, I’m a markdown beginner. Thanks Ralph.
Rui did some work on growl remote notifications, and then he made a question: why don’t we make this a standard? In doing that, he also talks about Jabber and the failure of that project. I don’t agree with the last part at all, and I’ll try to answer his question.
First, let’s talk about Growl. I really really like Growl, I think it is the second best thing that has happened to the Mac this year (the first being Quicksilver). I like the fact that with it I can have a single app and a single prefpane that controls all my notifications. I even changed IM clients (from Proteus to Adium) because I could not find Growl support in Proteus, and Adium 0.7 had it.
But Growl has some problems. First, I don’t have a history of notifications. Sometimes I’m away from my TiBook, and I lose notifications. I don’t have a place where I can see the last 20 minutes of notifications.
Second, when I’m offline, I cannot receive notifications, and while the servers could keep on trying to send them, it wouldn’t work very well. The moment you get online, you’re bombarded with notifications, so you’ll probably just skip most of them. If you want to see what I’m saying, download Rawr-endezvous, connect your Mac to a local network with lots of other Macs, and fire it up. Expect to be looking at several screens worth of notifications.
Third, you can specify a title and a text for each notification, but you cannot follow it through to the tool/site/server where you can fix the problem. Growl really needs support for a URL, a clickable one. The lack of a “tell me more”-action limits the usefulness.
Fourth, I have 200+ systems, in several places, behind several types of firewalls. My own laptop is behind another corporate firewall, and I don’t expect the local firewall admins to open up yet another port for notifications. Also, I don’t think it is reasonable to have systems on the other side of the planet sending me notifications directly to my laptop.
Growl is the last mile of notification systems. It’s a personal notification system, not a network notification system. Does it need to receive events from the network? Sure! Should we create another protocol for that? Maybe not.
A network notification system needs a lot more than displaying the notifications. It needs aggregation of events, it needs to know that the user is online or offline, to route the notifications to the most available person to handle it. And that brings us to IM systems.
If you use an IM system for transport of notifications, you get a lot of those things for free. When I say IM system, I don’t limit myself to XMPP/Jabber. You can use SIMPLE if you want. I really don’t care. I use XMPP/Jabber because that’s what I know. I’ll use XMPP in the rest of this article because of that. Fell free to s/XMPP/IM system/g.
With XMPP you get a lot of things out-of-the-box: * You get an extensible protocol; * You get all the authentication stuff (with TLS support); * you get a bi-directional protocol, so you can ask the source of the notification “Tell me more”; * you get a global scalable reliable protocol; * you get powerful publish/subscribe primitives.
Let’s look at each of these in turn. XMPP is an extensible protocol and that allows you to define new packets (stanzas in XMPP lingo) to transport all the information and semantic hints you want.
You can ask people who know me, I’m not a big fan of XML. I think it is over-hyped and over-used. It seems that, like IBM mainframes in the 60’ and Cisco gear in the 90’, you won’t be fired if you use them. XML is also lousy for transport of information. Network protocols should be efficient and XML is not. An XML parser is more complex and heavy than a XDR or ASN.1 parser, for sure. Also the amount of useless information in XML is very high. Huffman must be turning in it’s grave.
I don’t see XML as the reason for XMPP extensibility, I really don’t, but XML is a very high-level method of encoding information, and for now it helps to use it as the base of XMPP. Eventually, you could put a XML dictionary-based compression scheme between XMPP clients and servers, and still use the same protocol. Only compressed in transit. Gzip is also an option, and it’s even mentioned in XMPP RFC (this is from memory, I need to check the negotiation phase).
Before people start telling me something like “you stupid person, my p4 x ghz machine does not have performance problems with XML”, or “you moron, my 2mbit ADSL is mostly empty, so if I need 400 bytes to send a simple hello, that’s not a problem”, I have two things for you to think about: * always-on mobile networks will charge you for bytes transfered, at least in the mass-market plans; * it’s a waste of resources having 20000 clients connected to my server and having 20000 XML parsers: machines don’t need human- readable protocols.
Back to our list, the second point is TLS support. It’s mandatory in XMPP. It’s a standard, it works and it’s well understood.
The third point is bi-directional protocol. Having a bi-directional protocol allows you to use your notification system to query your systems. It allows your notifications to be short and to the point, giving you the possibility to ask for more information, so that you can correctly evaluate the problem.
The fourth point, a scalable network, is very important if you have more than 50 or so servers. You need aggregation points for notifications, and you need server-to-server communications. You also need reliability, you need the assurance that if an application sends a notification to the local notification center, the message wont be lost (insert regular acts of god disclaimer here). You need store-and-forward semantics, or end-to-end acknowledge of notification. Maybe a mix of both.
Finally, you probably work in a team, with a on-duty staff, and with escalation procedures for notifications. If a disk is 100% full, I don’t care if you’re offline, someone must be notified, right? Here we get into pubsub systems, probably the best way to deal with the problem of one to many communications right now. You can subscribe to applications, servers, clusters, any node or object in your infrastructure. It’s your decision, it’s under your control.
Pubsub is available in XMPP in two forms: the lazy one, and the standard one. The lazy one is multi-user chat rooms. You can use a multi-user chat room as a basic quick and dirty pubsub. Just create a chat room for each topic. Whoever wants to be notified, just joins the chat room. It’s a one-to-many system, and it works. Imagine this: all your mail servers connected to the same chat room, and having one of them say “Hey people, this dude at 127.0.0.1 is spamming me hard. block the sucker”, and having all the other machines in the cluster do it. You can even go into the chat room to monitor those events, or even to say “guys, unblock 127.0.0.1, please”. Yes, notifications can be sent between applications.
The standard for pubsub is JEP-0060, and you have at least two implementations today: ralph’s Idavoll and ejabberd (which also seems a very nice, mostly-XMPP compliant server. If only virtual hosts where supported…)
So with all of this, using an IM protocol for transport of notifications has a lot going for it. XMPP is by no means perfect. I’m still not sure if XMPP can really assure delivery of messages between servers. I don’t think you have the same store-and-forward with acknowledges you have in SMTP. And I really think that a low-bandwidth version of the Jabber network protocol is needed. But it’s a start.
So answering Rui’s question: why not make Growl a standard? Well, by all means, do it. But as a last mile solution for the notification problem, not for the network part of the problem. The network part is complex and we already have protocols that do it very well, we just need to glue them together.
How do we do that? Well, I have an idea, but I’ll need to talk about something else first, to clarify something about XMPP/Jabber that Rui also mentions (yes, the “jabber is dead part”…).
Saying that XMPP is an IM protocol, is like saying that SMTP is for sending text messages. Yes, you can do it, and it’s probably the most common use. But XMPP is so much more if you look into it. It has a powerful resource discovery protocol (See JEP-0030) and at least one decent client implementation, Psi, very decent publish and subscribe capabilities, and it also does IM :).
Regarding the lack of clients, my answer is “it depends”. You can have great clients today if you want the IM part only. Adium works very well, Fire also works OK. If you really need a XMPP client (and that’s an entirely different ball game), then no, there aren’t any good clients out there. Again, Psi is probably the best one.
The way I see it, XMPP is much more powerful than traditional IM systems, and most client implementations stop after having the IM part done. The rest of the XMPP doesn’t seem to have reached critical mass. In XMPP, you can use pubsub to publish the current music you are listening to, and I can subscribe to that topic to know that (and then probably use Growl to tell me whenever that changes). But there is a lot of framework missing that needs to be in place to make it work: how does my XMPP client talk to my music player? In a Apple environment this is a little bit easier, due to the iTunes domination, but these are the problems that face XMPP extensions adoption for now.
Now back to Rui’s answer: how do we do it? Well, you could build a XMPP client not for IM, but for notifications only. Your own personal notification avatar. Julian mentioned this recently. You can even built it into Growl itself.
This would allow you to use Growl to subscribe to topics. You still need to solve Growl shortcomings (at least the lack of URL support), but the rest is pretty much already in place.
My own jab at the problem, Ambrosio, does some of it, but I’m still finishing it’s infrastructure to be able to do what I’ve been talking about. We’ll see what happens in the next weeks.