On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Peter Saint-Andre<[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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. The only part I feel ugly is redundancy in presence subscriptions (duplicated information in the presence and in the roster protocol), but indeed it works by using just presence and listening for roster pushes from the server, so it is not a big deal. Instead I don't see any practical way for skipping presence floods, they may be annoying, but the only alternative approach is waiting for an undefined time. > 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. I hope not. I see only two intervention areas, which are both backwards compatible: - adding annotations to roster items (the pubsub approach could be fine, but also a separate protocol for "address books") - the ability of handling multiple roster sources, as discussed in the other thread in xep 144 The good thing of both is that they just add something that can be ignored by unaware clients and servers. -- Fabio Forno, Ph.D. Bluendo srl jabber id: [email protected]
