-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/15/09 8:53 AM, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote: > 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.
Right. But then clients and servers need to implement two similar but different protocols for almost exactly the same functionality. Is this really worth all the time and effort and confusion involved? 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 iEYEARECAAYFAkpd8DYACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyEywCfZADP5iLwN1vBXFROs1NzgwRt wyoAnjq2+PzVk/7sGp5wAu3AjVg7qQfF =UcaW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
