Hi,
On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:07 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
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.
Sure, but it assumes the users will. If instead of the resource you
would show the name of the identity, and allowed people to name their
connections, you would prevent the problems under discussion.
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.
No it's not. the disco identity name is not used for routing purposes.
Resources are.
Disco names where made to be human readable, resources where made for
entities on the XMPP network to distinguish between connections.
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.
Well, I will read it, but given that they are trying to solve
different problems, I really don't see the overlap.
In DNS-SD its not common two have two instances of each identity on
the same network, or is it?
Best regards,
--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use XMPP!
