-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 9/6/09 12:28 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> Now with the short answers out of the way, I do have some concerns. > > The specification does three things: One, it defines a way to do ad-hoc > commands asynchronously (possibly across user sessions). Two, it defines > a new payload format for ad-hoc commands. Three, it defines a schema > discovery format. I think at least the asynchronous ad-hoc command part > deserves to be separate from the other two. > > What I would prefer: > > 1. An Asynchronous Ad-Hoc Commands XEP. I agree that it makes sense to split the asynchronicity stuff out of XEP-0244 into a separate spec -- perhaps a new XEP but I think preferably a revised version of XEP-0050 so that everything about the core of ad-hoc commands is in one specification. > 2. The IO Data custom payload/schema format in an IO Data XEP, but as > payload for ad-hoc commands, not just asynchronous ad-hoc commands. IMHO this can remain in XEP-0244. > 3. Other formats in the future (SOAP, whatever). I would love a WSDL > discovery XEP. Wouldn't those be separate specs? > Some problems with the XEP: > > 1. The XEP basically allows a service to expose a set of global > functions. There is no possibility for function namespaces. This is > similar to the SOAP over XMPP XEP, where you can have only one service > end point per-JID (which I consider a non-minor deficiency). It's not yet clear to me (from this message or your reply to Egon) what changes you want to make. Could you perhaps suggest some text? > 2. The schemata discovery protocol requires at least two IQ requests per > exposed function. For a service exposing a large number of functions, > this makes it impractical to use for generating marshalling code at > runtime. And there’s no allowance for caching the schemas (i.e., you > have to load all of them every time, since there is no assurance that it > didn’t change since you last checked). For something like Prosody, where > we might be exposing hundreds of functions, which can appear and > disappear when modules (including third-party modules) are > loaded/unloaded, this makes for some nastiness. As far I understand your concern, this is more a matter of versioning the payload namespaces than exactly a problem for XEP-0244, but perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks for your feedback. 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkqn7MQACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwAfgCfUOcg1GCt/ylw7wu++ImDZhNA 2ioAoKgXqmKvVYEkpnBH+TQWQuRI5JtB =VwKj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
