On 5/23/12 1:28 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote: > On 05/23/2012 03:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 5/22/12 12:40 PM, Sergey Dobrov wrote: >> >> Well, the need to *change* it from the default to some reasonable value >> implies that the default value is unreasonable. That might depend on >> implementation and deployment (e.g., if someone runs an XMPP interface >> to an existing microblogging service, or a dedicated XMPP-based >> microblogging service, then the defaults might be perfectly reasonable). >> Thus I don't think the SHOULD is necessary here. It could say "verify >> that the max items setting is reasonable for microblogging purposes and >> change if necessary". > > Agree. > >> >> But I certainly might want to receive the last published item whenever I >> log in. This too seems like a setting that a dedicated microblogging >> service would tune in their configuration. >> > > Yes, it reasonable thing but do you think we should think about user > subscription preferences more deeply?
Yes, but I doubt that we could say definitively that the configuration MUST or SHOULD be X for all users. >>> The meaning is just to provide easy way to obtain this very important >>> data by just retrieving some magic constant named item. >> >> We usually try to avoid magic values. :) >> > > It's a good position and perhaps it's good enough for pubsub nodes but > think about comments nodes: > > 1) extra node can lead to nodes names conflicts easier (again we need > some magic value to construct new node name) > 2) it's harder to clean up: to delete post from blog you will need three > retracts which can't be done atomic. Yes, I see your point. I don't see a good solution right now, but I will think about it some more. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
