2009/10/28 Brian Cully <[email protected]>: > On 27-Oct-2009, at 18:25, Tuomas Koski wrote: > >> 2009/10/1 Fabio Forno <[email protected]>: >>> >>> so +1 for modtime >> >> we seem to have reached a overall understanding that a attribute >> called "stamp" could be added to the item element. Example: >> >> <item stamp='20091027225837256'> > > It appears so, although I'm still vehemently against it. I loathe > timestamps and would only recommend them in the payload because they're > vague and error-prone. > >> If we are going to do this, should we then also allow the usage of >> time stamp when requesting items from the node >> (http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#subscriber-retrieve-requestall)? > > We should use opaque versions, akin to rosters. This has no vagary, > is not as error-prone, and will scale to the foreseeable future, where > timestamps simply do not (what happens when you get three updates in a given > micro or nanosecond?) The worst case is what to do when a publish comes in > between requesting items and getting the result, in which case subsequent > requests for differences from a version will return an ever-diminishing set, > the most likely case being the empty set. It allows more optimizations and > does not rely on concepts of time which are wildly variable. >
I haven't re-read the thread (though I might). However we had pretty much the same debate over roster versioning... what harm does it do to take the same approach and make the version an opaque string? Then the server can use a timestamp (more fool it) or something more 'smart'. Matthew
