On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Peter Saint-Andre<[email protected]> wrote:
> The requirements for such features are quite nebulous, IMHO. If someone > cares about them, they can work to define them more clearly. At the > moment I don't feel there are any truly compelling use cases here, but I > freely admit that I might be wrong because I haven't thought about it in > detail yet. > > The "roster activation" idea is an optimization for mobile environments > that we talked about at XMPP Summit 6 earlier this year. Refer to the > list archives for a bit more insight into what that might mean. You are right. In part my fault, in part overwhelmed by too much noise, since each time we start talking about a minor change in the roster, as this time, there is a big thread for re-engineering the whole architecture, with no practical outcome at the end [1]. Therefore we decided to go with privacy lists, which are ugly as well, but at least they are implemented [1] I think that is one of the things where it is better to work in private in small groups and start public discussion only when there is a complete proposal -- Fabio Forno, Ph.D. Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com jabber id: [email protected]
