-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/15/09 8:18 AM, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote: > 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.
What is "the pressing problem"? >> 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. Look, folks, this is a major redesign of core XMPP functionality. I think we need to tread very very carefully here. What *exactly* is truly broken (as opposed to not aesthetically pleasing)? What problems are you trying to solve that are not solved with jabber:iq:roster? Etc. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpd6FwACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzBxgCeNbQhM80o2hrqO+GuTSEog/p6 Op8AoLEZgCcbEQnwnMVhrqnBfozQD6R0 =mIIz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
