On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Jonathan Schleifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Matthew Wild" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If they type it manually then they know what they are doing, and when >> they come to type the stanza for resource binding, they will read the >> RFC and see that it recommends not specifying a resource :) > > Which is IMO a painfully bad idea for users with instable connections. > They will have thousands of resources online after a short while and > you don't know which to msg. Very, very bad idea, IMO. Makes it totally > unusable with an unstable conenction. You *WANT* a static resource > then, so you can replace the old, dead connection. >
At least this way the client can make the choice rather than the server. Then you are free to do as you prefer. Personally I agree with you, I would probably continue to use a static resource. However it is against the spirit of XMPP to allow the possibility of presence leaks, so I think it is best that the RFC says that clients SHOULD ask for a server-generated resource. That said, a clever client could generate a random resource, and use that. If it got temporarily disconnected, it could re-use the same resource until you actually sign off manually or quit. Matthew.
