On 24-Nov-2009, at 19:30, Robin Collier wrote:
> I don't think the specification should purposely make it difficult to resolve
> this issue if it isn't necessary. Your statement ignores the fact that most
> applications
> developers will use libraries to access XMPP and not tinker at the protocol
> level directly.
If you want to invoke "libraries" then the issue becomes simpler. This
semantic is easy to encapsulate within a library and developers who use that
library don't need to care /at all/.
> Synchronize your synchronous requests and async messages? Is it only me
> that thinks this seems unreasonable?
Welcome to XMPP, the asynchronous protocol with a subset of synchronous
delivery semantics. There's no avoiding the fact that while your synchronous
request is being processed an asynchronous event will be delivered. If you
think this only occurs within pubsub you are sorely mistaken.
> Painful? Yes. Reasonable? ??
And timestamps do not solve even one of the issues you've brought up
except in some completely untested personal trial of what you believe should
work in absence of any other evidence.
-bjc
