I am very sorry I didn't have enough... But as it seems now... the new RFC breaks the current behavior that was not the best, but acceptable.
And the new behavior is totally broken unless other (for now optional, specified in XEP-198) means are used for disconnection detection and stanza acks. That's pretty bad and will lead to a loss of trust that XMPP services work at least reasonably reliably. That's my opinion. Pavel Šimerda On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:10:15 -0400 "Eric Will" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 5:33 AM, Jonathan Schleifer > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not every client supports XMPP ping and this does a lot of traffic > > and isn't acceptable for mobile devices. Thousands might be a bit > > exagerated, but you can really see 5 - 10 resources. > > Currently, I send a space to any resource I haven't heard from in 120 > seconds, and if the write succeeds I reset the time. If the write > fails, I kill them. XMPP-CORE approves using whitespace for a ping, so > I don't see the need for "XMPP PING" support. > > Also, the RFC is quite mute on what should be done about conflicting > resources. The new draft actually recommends overriding the resource > and adding randomness to it instead of replacing the already-connected > one by the same name. At the moment, my code just returns conflict/ > and closes the stream. -- Pavel Šimerda Freelancer v oblasti počítačových sítí, komunikace a bezpečnosti Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
