On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:28:30 -0400 Eric Will <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > That seems quite sensible. Why force the indirection? > > This seems to be largely a matter of taste as opposed to good > technical reasoning. I don't think there IS a good technical > reasoning. Both points have merit. The whole thread is based on technical reasoning. > On the one hand, it's a "good thing" that clients can specify their > own so that advanced-ish XMPP users have that extra bit of oomph to > utilize (and let's face it, most XMPP users are advanced-ish). If one can assing a name to a "resource" (in the meaning of a connected client, not a resource string), he SHOULD :) be satisfied. Furthermore... if this feature serves well both advanced users and basic users, it definitely brings a much better value than if it only served advanced users. Noticed that I changed my mind thanks to Pedro Melo's and other's good reasoning. > On the other hand, it's a "good thing" that resources are an > implementation detail and can be abstracted away from the client. > > > /psa > > -- Eric Will > -- Pavel Šimerda Freelancer v oblasti počítačových sítí, komunikace a bezpečnosti Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
