2009/7/15 Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>: > > On 7/15/09 8:44 AM, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote: >> The only objectively >> "broken" thing is probably just the fact you can't be sure about the >> existence of incoming subscription request (if declined by a different >> resource, you have no idea it happened). >> >> Subjectively, roster (and subscription handling as a whole) was the >> single most annoying thing I've implemented so far, including MUC, >> data forms, file-transfer, etc. It's my subjective personal opinion, >> though, so you can freely ignore it. > > I never said that the roster+presence functionality is beautiful, > simple, or easy to implement -- only that it has worked for 10 years, so > I think we need to be very careful about designing something new and > backward-incompatible at this stage. > > Peter >
Well, it may be completely different, but I think backwards compatibility wouldn't be a problem. By creating a new protocol with different namespace, we would essentially be adding a new interface, not replacing the new one. Then it's simply a matter of client choosing the interface to use for it's session.
