2009/7/15 Pedro Melo <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > On 2009/07/15, at 08:36, Kevin Smith wrote: > >> While we're discussing upgrading roster handling, can I put my request >> in for hanging arbitrary xml off the roster entries, please? > > Thats the only reason I could come up with to justify changing namespaces. > And I think that when Joe mentioned "it would give us a chance to define an > extensibility model" this is one of the things that would fallback naturally > from such model. > > The question as always is of scope: do we just make jabber:iq:roster a > little bit more liberal and use it for rosters from gateways, or do we go > the whole nine yards and create a new roster protocol. > > I think that creating a new protocol for rosters is something that takes > time, and the problem of gateway roster would still be messy until then. > > I say we fix what the known problem is right now, gateway interaction, by > allowing the use of jabber:iq:roster and roster versioning with multiple > entities. >
I'd say we could do both. Fix the pressing problem now, but start designing an entirely new protocol. > I would love to have XML annotations on roster items, it would solve a lot > of with meta-contacts, and other uses cases (personal notes on contacts like > "remind me to ask kev for an update on his new client ;)", or alarms "when > remko logs on, ask him if the client is coming along"). > > But how to do it would be a big discussion: would it be possible to just > define a new PubSub profile and be done with it? > It's possible I guess, but creating a new roster protocol could have another advantages. For example, the current one doesn't communicate the full state. For pending-in, you have to listen for presences and client even has to guess the state sometimes. The presence subscription handling using presence stanzas is another thing I always considered quite weird. > Best regards, >
