On Jul 21, 2011, at 12:05, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > > On 7/21/11 10:03 AM, "Dave Cridland" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Really, there are cases where unlocking on presence isn't the right >> thing to do, but if in doubt, unlocking is the safest option. >> >> We have a clear example of when not to unlock that we all agree on. >> >> I think we can move on. > > I don't agree. How to route is completely up to the server. There are > servers that do aggressively interesting processing of the contents of the > presence update, and there is no way (short of the <primary/> thing from > XEP-168) for the client to know when my primary resource has changed. >
The case Cridland is talking about is if there's a single available resource. In that case, not unlocking on presence updates might not be too harmful. - m&m
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
