On 5/28/12 1:53 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote: > On 05/26/2012 01:23 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 5/23/12 1:28 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote: >>> On 05/23/2012 03:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. > > I think we can use caps for it someway. (i.e. user's resource can define > notification behavior by setting features like +notify: +send-retracts, > +send-last, etc)
In this area, I'd rather make some suggestions, not hard MUST or SHOULD. >>>>> 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. > > Can we just add a definition of "magic" item (attached or persistent > item) in XEP-60 and make, possibly, some special query to set/get that > item? I think, that could solve all our problems with data sparsity. At > the other hand, it will be easy to move from the item="0" to such magic > item solution and we will be able to move ahead with software > implementation until new standards will be released. I'm still not happy with magic. However, my to-do list contains an item for XEP-0060 revisions so perhaps we can add this feature to the open issues list. I'll start a separate thread about it so that it doesn't get lost in a discussion of microblogging. > Another way is to use nodes collections but it seems to more more > complex. For now, XEP-277 is too complicated for clients implementation, > I think, and I'm trying to do it easier. OK. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
