2009/4/17 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: > On Fri Apr 17 15:06:36 2009, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote: >> >> 2009/4/17 Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>: >> > >> > Jiří, it's better to raise issues than to ignore them. Sometimes we >> > conclude that the issue isn't very serious, but often we don't know that >> > until we discuss it for a while. So keep posting! >> > >> >> Sure, I will. >> I guess the only "issue" now is the unneeded restriction you added to >> the SVN based on my incorrect feedback. I mean the part "The client >> MUST NOT process any of the interim roster pushes until...". I think >> you can safely remove it again, as the reason for the change was >> proven invalid. > > While you're looking at this, what's your opinion on the empty roster case? > (That is, when a roster becomes empty). > > It's an odd edge case, but I'm not sure the protocol handles this usefully. >
That's really tricky. And surely can't stay that way, since client wouldn't know, how to interpret it in some cases. I think it could be solved by sending interim pushes _first_, then an empty IQ result to mark interim pushes were all sent. What do you think?
