Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Sep 2 23:27:13 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:I'm not strictly sure that's the case - I think that during a conversation, we can essentially rely on unacked, theoretically lossy messaging because it's actually really reliable. The human factor is usually the fail point.JLIST wrote:Hello Peter,Instant messaging, alerts and notifications, that kind of thing.I see. I would want my IM messages to be guaranteed delivered :)Most IM users don't care.
OK. So most IM users don't care very much. We're talking about human communication, not app-to-app data transfer of the kind that this JLIST person seems to be envisioning.
To put it another way, most IM users wouldn't realise messages can actually be lost, because it happens sufficiently rarely, especially compared with how many messages get ignored.
Fine. :)
And how do you define "guaranteed delivery"? At least once? At most once? Delivery with receipt? Delivery with receipt per-hop? Delivery with cryptographically signed receipts?See also XEP-0184 if you really care about this (message receipts).Tsk. That won't guarantee delivery.
Tsk whatever. He didn't define what he meant by guaranteed delivery so I speculated. To my mind, saying you want "guaranteed delivery" is like saying you want "security".
You need that *and* XEP-0198 on every hop.
Yes I need to update XEP-0198, I see.
And, of course, you need to be able to reconnect if your network connection does go down.
Quickly, or just reconnect?
Or, you could simply use a perfectly reliable network.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that option. :P /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ JDev mailing list FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20 Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________
