On Wednesday 18 August 2010 15:14:59 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 8/17/10 6:15 AM, Yann Leboulanger wrote: > > On 08/17/2010 02:03 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: > >> On 17 August 2010 12:52, Peter Saint-Andre<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On 8/17/10 5:37 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: > >>>> Also I've had bad experience (as a user) with transfer resumption thus > >>>> far... I think some clients just ignore the range, and send from 0, > >>>> causing the range-supporting recipient to receive the start of the > >>>> file twice. So either we make range support mandatory, or we need some > >>>> way for the initiator to announce it. > >>> > >>> If anything, I'd prefer to remove ranges from XEP-0096. Do any clients > >>> support them? > >> > >> Without checking, I believe Miranda and Gajim do. > >> > >> Matthew > > > > Yep Gajim supports that to resume a transfer. > > Hi Yann, thanks for the confirmation. Is this feature useful? Does it > improve the user experience? Does it make file transfer more reliable? > Does it introduce complexities into the code? Is the cost worth the > benefit? Just curious. :)
Psi has resume also. From the first release with file transfer, even. A recipient is only supposed to request a range in the iq response if the sender claims to support the range feature in the iq request. If there is a client claiming the range feature but not actually supporting it, then that's a bug they need to fix. -Justin
