On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:08:55 +0100 Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Remko Tronçon wrote: > > However, that's orthogonal to the original point: If you ask for a > > specific resource, I assume you know what you're doing, and the > > server should respect that. I think that using some kind of micro > > id for resource name is the easiest and best way to avoid the > > reconnection problems, and in the mean time avoid the problem with > > multiple resources kicking each other out (just because the user > > happened to name his location the same). > > +1. > > Servers should respect the will of the clients here IMHO. I was just > arguing for us to move forward :). > > Best regards, Okay, so you just think servers should respect it for now... but clients should slowly move out of it and use the names instead of resource strings. If so, I'm very much for this approach, together with caching of the CAPS reasonably and stating that new CAPS hashes will likely to be unique and that servers would usually cache at least as many CAPS as they have users (more because of users with multiple clients/devices). Pavel -- Pavel Šimerda Freelancer v oblasti počítačových sítí, komunikace a bezpečnosti Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
