On Oct 6, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
On Monday 06 October 2008 10:45:06 Remko Tronçon wrote:
So, I agree with Pedro that resources should be opaque, and that what
we currently abuse resource names for (mainly historical because not
many clients did much disco'ing before caps).
Do we abuse resource names that way? When I direct stanzas at a
particular
resource, it's a human decision. It's not like I wrote code that
scans for
resource strings that contain "laptop" in them. Who has even done
that? :)
The Psi GUI? :)
If I right click a contact, all the "ACTION to" will open a sub-menu
with the available resource.
The concept is correct: you should be able to select the resource
when you want to execute commands, we just should not identify the
connections using the resource as is the current practice.
Humans like to name stuff. I've named my XMPP endpoint here
"Onulet". This
is a personally-assigned, untranslatable, fixed name for the
connection. If
I send a file to Onulet, it's because I specifically chose to send
to there,
not because the destination was derived via some disco metadata.
cool, you should name the connections. I think we all agree on that.
I'm just suggesting that you use the name attribute of the disco
<identity> to do it.
That's what he is there for.
The discussion boils down to whether we should have named or unnamed
endpoints.
I don't think that that is the discussion actually. I don't see
anybody defending un-named connections.
It just what to use for the naming.
I believe there is value in both.
Unnamed connections *might* be useful for negative presence
connections. And even then I'm not so sure.
Best regards,
--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use XMPP!
