On Mar 4, 2009, at 2:05 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Fabio Forno wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Jonathan Schleifer
<[email protected]> wrote:
I agree that we need an alternative for privacy lists - but this is
definitely not partial roster retrival‼
And what about partial activation? With partial activation you still
manager the roster as usual, and in a separate iq you set on/off
toggles for each group, at any time of the session.
What is the definition of "activation"? Does that mean I receive
presence only from the groups I have activated, or that outbound
presence notifications are also filtered?
I understand the need for "activation" in the mobile world as a way to
limit the initial presence storm, so I would say that "activation" is
telling which groups in my roster I am interested in receiving
presences from.
I still don't see the case to use "activation" as yet-another-privacy-
list mechanism.
So far we have:
* incremental roster retrieval: useful to keep the client-copy of
our roster in sync with the server;
* roster activation: useful to limit the presence broadcast to
selected groups of contacts.
I would add the possibility of <presence type="probe"> to the client
side. It would allow clients to "activate" a specific contact.
As for controlling presence-out (aka invisible mode), I don't see any
value so far on adding that to the roster protocol.
Best regards,
--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [email protected]
Use XMPP!
