Dnia 10-09-2007, Pn o godzinie 14:58 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre napisał(a): > > XEP-0186 is just this sh$%^ XEP-0018 in a pretty IQ envelope. > > I hate it just as much as presence-invisible. > > Can you elaborate your reasoning? "I hate it" is not very helpful. :)
Please do look at both the XEP-0016 and XEP-0186 specs. It is spaghetti. So many conditions, corner cases, if this than thats. Implementing it is even more horrible spaghetti. The whole presence handling pipline needs to be intersected with all these special cases handling conditions and tracking. And I do not see a reason for this invisibility thingy existence too. We do not have to mirror patches for deficiencies in legacy protocols. We really could do better with Privacy Lists. > > Maybe it's time to think of Stacked Privacy Lists (more than one PL > > enabled at a time) that would make XEP-0126 much more sensible. > > Yes, we've talked about that for a long time. It's a fairly major > change, but it may be worth considering. I do not think it is that major change. Just a thin layer on top of XEP-0016 with one more advertised feature and ability to activate another list without deactivating current. Let's consider this (by XEP-0016 2.4. Ex.11): <iq from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/orchard' type='set' id='active1'> <query xmlns='jabber:iq:privacy' xmlns:spl='urn:xmpp:stacked-privacy-lists'> <active name='invisible-to-all' spl:insert='first'/> </query> </iq> that would activate list 'invisible-to-all' and insert it on top of stack. If a packet passes the first active list it is put through second and so on. -- Tomasz Sterna Xiaoka.com http://www.xiaoka.com/
