On 8 June 2010 17:19, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/6/10 2:22 PM, Guus der Kinderen wrote: > > > I would like to see the current XEPs > > being fixed/improved in a way that doesn't require structural changes. I > > think the suggestions made by both Brian and myself will make the > > existing XEPs "work" as intended, without changing them in a structural > > way. Low-hanging fruits? Can we simple pick one (or another alternative > > to the same extend), incorporate that as a guideline in the existing > > XEPs, and continue work on the sub-roster idea in a parallel effort? > > Patches are always welcome, although I agree with others in this thread > that work on distributed rosters would be more productive in the long term. > > I agree - the distributed roster specification should be the long(er)-term goal. Applying such a construct would potentially fix problems that appear practically unsolvable using the current XEP definition - at least not without major rewrites of the XEP (XMPP roster changes when the gateway is temporarily unavailable, for example).
I propose to patch the Gateway-interaction XEP in such a way that it outlines the importance of gateway-sided caching of the legacy roster representation. Although obvious for some, others will have trouble seeing its importance at all, or will fail to see that this is a pragmatic way of avoiding the problems identified in my first message. - Guus
