On 4/17/09 9:07 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Fri Apr 17 16:05:06 2009, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote: >> 2009/4/17 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: >> >> > 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?
We can't send an IQ-result that's unrelated to any IQ-set or IQ-get. > Or we could respond with "What you have is okay, I may send you some > pushes", by returning an empty result That seems better. > - we've established there's no > need to treat these pushes any differently to normal ones, after all. That principle is key, here. > This then means that an empty roster is different to an empty result, > and means fewer octets for the optimal case. Aha, so you are suggesting that an empty roster is this: <iq type='result'> <query/> </iq> Whereas an indication that you are up to date (aside from possibly some roster pushes) is this: <iq type='result'/> Correct? /me ponders Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
