On Tuesday 07 October 2008 11:57:21 Justin Karneges wrote: > question whether the extra complexity of having two values instead of one > is worthwhile.
And on that note, the best argument *I* personally see in having two values is with regard to usability: - Most users don't want to have to specify a name for their connection. - It should be possible to name a connection for those that desire to. - We shouldn't use the resource for the connection name, since the resource is a required field and most users won't know what to put for it. - Server should supply a randomly-assigned resource for all connections. - Users may optionally name their connections using a separate attribute (one proposed way is disco identity name). - Clients should not display resources of other contacts, since resources are useless values. Instead, they should only display the separate name attribute if applicable. - There ought to be a mechanism in place to prevent two named connections from having the same name. However, I think we could come up with a much simpler solution, like: - Resources are either user-specified or generated. - Generated resources are indicated with an "sa-" (server assigned) prefix. - Clients don't display resources that are indicated as generated. -Justin
