On 05/30/2012 05:33 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > 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. >
That's ok to remove hard restrictions from node configuration but it doesn't solve the problem that clients might want to set up these things independently per resource. >>>>>> 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. > But that will not be a magic but some "metaitem". What's wrong with it? >> 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 > -- With best regards, Sergey Dobrov, XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
