Tomasz,
Quoting Tomasz Sterna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
There's one other idea I have, but it may break backward
compatibility
and I'm not sure if it doesn't break something else: what if JIDs
like
'domain.com' are treated like 'wildcards' (like it is now), but
'@domain.com' are considered to be exact matches of domain JID (so,
basically, JID with empty user name)?
The same for resources: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' is treated like wildcard,
but '[EMAIL PROTECTED]/' is exact match of bare JID?
I think it is counter-intuitive.
Logic would hint that domain.com is exact match and @domain.com is a
wild match.
Similar with [EMAIL PROTECTED] is exact match and [EMAIL PROTECTED]/ is wild
match.
Yes, probably, but that would break current behavior for sure, while
the original approach seems to be less dangerous in this respect ...
If backward compatibility is not a problem, though, I personally would
be happy with either way of doing it.
(Yet on the other hand, though, intuition is quite subjective thing; I
can certainly see your point, but the other view might be "if user
part is not specified at all - this means we want all users, but if
'@' is specified - this means sender took the effort to include the
user part, and user name being empty means sender wants precisely
this: i.e. domain JID")
Good luck! Alexander
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
