Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 6/3/09 9:43 AM, Dirk Meyer wrote:
>> Brian Cully wrote:
>>>     I'm not sure if it's entirely appropriate to shoehorn it into
>>> pubsub,  since you can probably take care of this within a given
>>> application,  but doing it at the pubsub level would make it easier
>>> for app  developers and allow for easier distribution of item
>>> publishes without  having to share state outside of XMPP.
>> 
>> It works without extra support in pubsub. It would be similar to roster:
>> on every startup my application would contact all pubsub servers it
>> stores stuff on and fetches all items from the persistent storage. My
>> idea would reduce the traffic just like roster versioning does. It is a
>> nice add-on.
>
> What exactly needs to change in the spec to make this happen?

Bob Wyman gave me the idea to re-use the timestamps discussed on another
thread. The idea is good and solves half my problem. Using the timestamp
I can keep track of changes on the server. What's missing is a way to
use auto-subscribe with that feature. I want to know if the node has new
or deleted items since I was last (auto) subscribed. Instead of sending
the latest item on subscribe, the server sends the last timestamp of a
change on the node (which could be a delete event that can not be
detected by sending the latest item).

So what I need as spec besides the timestamp discussed in the other
thread are a two new possible values for the configuration option
pubsub#send_last_published_item: timestamp_on_sub and
timestamp_on_sub_and_presence. The behave similar to the values without
the timestamp_ prefix. The difference is that the server does not send
the real last published item and only the timestamp of the last change
instead:

<message from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='[email protected]' id='autosub'>
  <event xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event'>
    <items node='princely_musings' timestamp='...'>
  </event>
</message>

Does this make sense?


Dirk

-- 
$100 placed at 7 percent interest compounded quarterly for 200 years will
increase to more than $100,000,000 - by which time it will be worth nothing.
                                               [Robert A. Heinlein 1907-1988]

Reply via email to