Le 13/09/2012 00:05, Tomasz Sterna a écrit :
[...]
Looks simple.
Too simple? ;-)
It's never "too" simple :-) I think that, as you said before, the
current implementation was designed open enough to be adapted and that will greatly
simplify the coding of these new features.
In real life the "incoming" part of the "split" would get disabled parts
already handled on the "accepting" part, and all disconnected sessions
would have to cope.
Err... I'm not sure I understand this one. Sorry if my English and / or
understanding is too bad :-/
BTW I have another question.
AFAIK the routing to a domain is done only from c2s to sm when a user connects.
Then the sm answers with the domain in the "from" part and gives its ID too for
further communication. So, after this moment c2s knows to which component it should send
messages for that user session.
My question is: is this the only case where the routing to a domain is
needed?
If yes, in case of domain routing (e.g. when "to" is "example.com") one
should only route to one of the bound component serving that domain, maybe randomly. If no, ...?
That is not the same as routing to "[email protected]" without resource
because in that case we said we should duplicate the message to all components bound to
this user (whatever their resources).
--
-- \^/ --
-- -/ O \--------------------------------------- --
-- | |/ \| Alexandre (Midnite) Jousset | --
-- -|___|--------------------------------------- --
