On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think that the things you are describing fall into the category of
> optimizations that a smart client can implement to improve the user
> experience. But we don't need to describe all that in the spec ("in the
> unlikely event that you get disconnected after receiving some but not
> all of the roster pushes, cache what you've received so far but then
> when you reconnect you can shave a few seconds off the reconnection
> process by requesting the roster based on the version of the last roster
> push you cached, not the last full roster update"). That kind of thing
> is great but IMHO it doesn't really belong in an RFC.
+1
In fact in our implementation based on the current xep we haven't seen
any real issue that can't be dealt with good heuristics
--
Fabio Forno, Ph.D.
Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com
jabber id: [email protected]
