-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/27/09 8:31 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> 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'.

Using the same approach for pubsub and roster versioning seems sensible.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkrnrkUACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzPBwCePkzl9drMmn4Gm/A9CE5ge2OY
V6cAoMMDEXBLyPEqdc8+Ea1c8ybFHgSg
=3IFs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to