On Feb 7, 2008 1:39 AM, Joonas Govenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The xpath method can't handle two different people appending child nodes > simultaneously; they would end up in opposite orders on the two clients' > copies.
True. Perhaps I didn't explain well: I'm not pushing for replacing SXE with something else, I'm just pointing out that shared document editing is particular case of more general problem, remote object synchronization, and the way to do it is application dependent. With shared editing you have some requirements, such as handling concurrent changes; in other scenarios there may be one master applying changes and one or more consumers displaying those changes and in these cases xpath selection fits perfectly (or you may use the ids already supplied by the model used by the application, think of xhtml, why duplicating the ids of nodes?). > > Moreover the > > particular application could already provide explicit ids for nodes, > > and the transport could use them. > I don't think we want to make the transport rely on a particular > application. The transport should be neutral and transport "instruction messages" within a session, if both end point agrees why not letting them use application ids (again i'm not saying this should supercede SXE, but that the end nodes should be able to choose what works better) > > Basically what I'm saying is that > > the application could decide to switch to a different transport if it > > is more efficient and supported by both clients, but I think that > > jingle will help a lot in this. Perhaps the protocol won't need > > changes, just examples showing how to do the negotiation. > > > Agreed. I suppose those examples would belong in the XEPs that define > application types. exactly ;) -- Fabio Forno, Ph.D. Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com jabber id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
