On Monday 06 October 2008 12:15:56 Pedro Melo wrote: > 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? :)
No. Psi lists the resource names but my point is that it never parses them for meaning. > 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. And instead we should identify them with the disco identity name, which is also a free-form, untranslatable, opaque string? Fair enough, that's the same thing. > 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. I'm reminded of the DNS-SD specification. I suggest reading section 4.4: http://files.dns-sd.org/draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd.txt The authors (likely Cheshire here) argues that there is not much point in using an ugly hex value for the real identifier, and a discoverable friendly name, when you could just use the friendly name as the real identifier in the first place. -Justin
