Re: [Standards] MIX use of type=groupchat?

2017-01-23 Thread Evgeny Khramtsov
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:32:54 + Dave Cridland wrote: > MIX introduces a proxy JID simply because without one, you'd have to > have metadata in the message to indicate the publisher Why not? MIX server already parses node's items data, so why bother?

Re: [Standards] MIX use of type=groupchat?

2017-01-23 Thread Dave Cridland
On 23 January 2017 at 10:33, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: > Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:37:44 + > Dave Cridland wrote: > >> If by a generic relay you mean "reflects traffic as-is too all >> subscribers", isn't that what MIX/MUC are providing? > > It is hard to call

Re: [Standards] MIX use of type=groupchat?

2017-01-23 Thread Evgeny Khramtsov
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:37:44 + Dave Cridland wrote: > If by a generic relay you mean "reflects traffic as-is too all > subscribers", isn't that what MIX/MUC are providing? It is hard to call it "generic", because it introduces very specific stuff like "subject" node for

Re: [Standards] MIX use of type=groupchat?

2017-01-23 Thread Dave Cridland
On 23 January 2017 at 08:51, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: > Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:06:39 + > Dave Cridland wrote: > >> XEP-0207? > > The XEP is only funny because Pubsub sucks. In fact, we need something > like generic relay. Looking at MIX, pubsub cannot

Re: [Standards] MIX use of type=groupchat?

2017-01-23 Thread Evgeny Khramtsov
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:14:55 - "Steve Kille" wrote: > I think what we are doing with MIX is also elegant. And ad-hoc access model is very elegant for sure. Why is it needed by the way? Because pubsub's access model is not elegant enough? :) > I think that a MIX goal is

Re: [Standards] MIX use of type=groupchat?

2017-01-23 Thread Steve Kille
> And what about you previous statement: > > > There would be a definite elegance in "using PubSub" everywhere, and > > an early MIX version was written this way > > So you failed to build "elegant" solution and you don't think I'm right? [Steve Kille] I think what we are doing with MIX is

Re: [Standards] MIX use of type=groupchat?

2017-01-22 Thread Evgeny Khramtsov
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 07:12:17 - "Steve Kille" wrote: > I don't think this is right. And what about you previous statement: > There would be a definite elegance in "using PubSub" everywhere, and > an early MIX version was written this way So you failed to build "elegant"

Re: [Standards] MIX use of type=groupchat?

2017-01-22 Thread Steve Kille
> -Original Message- > From: Standards [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On Behalf Of > Evgeny Khramtsov > > Absolutely. Pubsub doesn't fit well, and, instead of improving pubsub XEP, > XSF decided to create this quasi-pubsub stuff. [Steve Kille] I don't think this is right. PubSub

Re: [Standards] MIX use of type=groupchat?

2017-01-22 Thread Steve Kille
Stephen > -Original Message- > From: Standards [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On Behalf Of > Stephen Paul Weber > Sent: 22 January 2017 19:32 > To: standards@xmpp.org > Subject: [Standards] MIX use of type=groupchat? > > I have a question about > <h

Re: [Standards] MIX use of type=groupchat?

2017-01-22 Thread Evgeny Khramtsov
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 19:31:38 + Stephen Paul Weber wrote: > I have a question about > > > Doesn't using defeat the purpose of > building on / re-using PubSub? Absolutely. Pubsub doesn't fit well, and,

[Standards] MIX use of type=groupchat?

2017-01-22 Thread Stephen Paul Weber
I have a question about Doesn't using defeat the purpose of building on / re-using PubSub? Why have this extra special case as a way to publish items, instead of using normal publish? And using type=groupchat seems to also