They all use the same "interface". XMPP/IRC would be different interfaces. I can use whatever client I want, not some client that is specifically coded for Slack.
I don't need ANY changes in my XMPP/IRC client to connect to a server.
But the reason why Slack discontinued XMPP/IRC is clear. They want people to use their shitty app/website.
In a conversation thread that’s all about “UI interfaces”, feels a bit pedantic to me to harp on defining “API interface” as your only valid “interface” definition, especially as there’s a plugin (https://github.com/wee-slack/wee-slack) for a popular IRC client to integrate with Slack’s “websocket interface”.
Actually, that’s not clear either (even if it was GP’s intent), it’s simply your bias coloring your perspective. Other folks could easily define interface as the Slack apps, especially in the context of this thread.
Many folks I’ve talked to don’t realize there are alternative ways to connect to Slack still once the XMPP / IRC endpoints died. They think the only way is using the Slack developed apps. Thankfully, that’s becoming more and more not true each day.
"connect" seems clear to me. But anyway, doesn't really make much of a difference.
>Many folks I’ve talked to don’t realize there are alternative ways to connect to Slack still once the XMPP / IRC endpoints died. They think the only way is using the Slack developed apps. Thankfully, that’s becoming more and more not true each day.
Which are? Using a proprietary Websockets API is not "another" way if even the Slack app is using that (not sure). The main difference to XMPP/IRC is, that with the later ones not a single line of code needs to be written (not from me and not from IRC/XMPP developers). Just use the client you like, set server and credentials and you are done. That's why there are protocols.
>Slack uses Websockets. Websockets != to HTTP.
port 443 is close enough and http is needed to start anyway :P
