On 04/09/2013 03:43 AM, Goffi wrote: > Thanks Justin and Sergey for both answering, and sorry for the late > answer (I was really busy lastly, I guess you know what it is).
Hello Goffi, thanks you too for the discussion. > > So far I'm starting with XEP-0277 as it's seems to fit more my needs. > But I think XEP-0303 could be interesting (is there any known > implementation yet ?). > > I have some issues with XEP-0277, please let me know if it's a > misunderstanding or not: > > - the 4.2 note say "The "pubsub#access_model" SHOULD be set to "open" to > allow any user to comment to a post. Other values are suitable too > according to the user's settings.". > But the open access only mean everybody can subscribe to the node, and > see the items, not publish. It's a known issue, I'll fix it in the next version of XEP-277 if I'll do it. For now, I don't see the possibilities to continue my work on it with the known problems with PEP and pubsub. :( But you can read it as "publish_model" instead safely. > In the current state, affiliation of publisher should be given to > everybody which want to post a comment. In the XEP-0060 it seems that > the option "publish_model" can solve this situation (with the models > "subscribers" and "open"), but it's not really documented, we can just > see it in examples. So I think: > * options "publish_model" should be explicit in XEP-0277 Why? > * this should be clarified in XEP-0060 What? > > - publishing a link to comments mean we have to request comments for > each nodes, which can give network/performances overhead. In my opinion, > a link should be present if comments are allowed, and if there is any > comment in the node, the parent note metadata should be updated with > some kinds of "has_comments" option. So if the "has_comments" options is > True, the client can check the comments nodes, if the "has_comments" is > False, no need to do a request to the node. > That behaviour would mean a pubsub extension to links the comments node > and the parent node. I didn't get it. Why do you need "has_comments" if you just see the link on comments node or don't see? > > This are my 2 main points, an other one is I that I need per-item > permissions (see > http://www.goffi.org/post/2012/06/24/Fine-access-tuning-for-PubSub ), > and that would mean some work on a comments XEP. That's interesting but I don't see the reason to do it now, we can't do even simpler things with pep now. Who will need flexible access models when we can't do one way subscriptions? > > Finally for my point of view on your worries: > >> So I really suppressed with this [SNIP] >> are things-in-itselves like buddycloud because they don't need to listen >> and wait to everybody and they can just build they own protocols. > > That's actually the issue: they build they own protocol. One of the main > goal of XMPP is to have a common protocol so we can communicate > together. It's a possibility to start an implementation (to show the > proof of concept, to have something working quickly, even if we have to > adapt it to a XEP later, to make thinks move, etc), but at the end, it's > necessary to have a common standard. Completely my point of view. How can we fix the issues with PEP? > >> Don't you want to talk over this problem first? Do you have similar >> fears? > > I haven't had time to go through it so far, I didn't had time to work on > a XEP even if I have already some protocol proof of concept (cf my > already quoted blog post for per-item access and its implementation > there: http://repos.goffi.org/sat_pubsub/ ), I'm busy enough with my > project ( http://sat.goffi.org ), so I can't talk about bureaucracy yet. > > But I can see several XMPP projects implementing microblogging (at least > Buddycloud - in they own way -, MOVIM, Jappix, yours (habahaba ?) and > Salut à Toi my own), and comments are mandatory for that. So it worth it > to work on it, even if we do it the hard way. Yes, sure, I am continuing to work on it but I am trying to do it most safely way to be sure it won't be a problem to fix it later with possible XEP changes. That's why I am trying to implement the very basic features first, but do it well. But there are things that don't allow me to do that and I am just a little despair to finish them... > > Cheers > Goffi > > > > Le 11/03/2013 08:50, Sergey Dobrov a écrit : >> It's hard to remember XEP-303 for me now, but I remember that it was >> VERY complex so I didn't want to work with it anyway. >> >> The second thing is that it's really not hard to create a new XEP for >> commenting based on the current XEP-277, but there are many many >> problems with Pubsub itself which are needed to be solved first. I am >> trying to work with things as is but it's really hard to do smth good >> with them. At the other hand, I really have no idea how to win XSF >> bureaucracy and move things forward. I was constantly raising issues >> that was important in real life open pubsub protocols which also were >> supported with other people who interested in the pubsub blogging but I >> had no ANY feedback and any advice on how to move things forward. >> >> So I really suppressed with this and I don't know if there any profit to >> contribute into these conversations, who will do actual changes? It >> seems to me that nobody cares and the only thing can now make a progress >> are things-in-itselves like buddycloud because they don't need to listen >> and wait to everybody and they can just build they own protocols. >> >> Don't you want to talk over this problem first? Do you have similar >> fears? >> >> On 03/11/2013 12:36 AM, Goffi wrote: >>> G'day, >>> >>> I'm implementing comments in my client (http://sat.goffi.org), so I >>> bring up this long and interesting conversation because I think there >>> are some points which still need some discussion: >>> >>> - I think that comments must not be in XEP-0277 but in a separate one: >>> comments are not only useful for microblogging. There are good points in >>> XEP-0303, but I don't like the activity stream idea, and I more think >>> like Sergey that the same goal can be achieved with a more generic >>> pubsub journal XEP. The issue with the 303 is that the pubsub service >>> should have a different behaviour to compile the activity stream to the >>> /comments node, that mean a service dedicated to comments and a >>> management depending on node name, which is not really KISS. >>> >>> - ordering/filtering is actually needed, as suggested by Justin. Maybe >>> not url encoded but more with some kind of option in the stanza >>> >>> - what about anonymous comments ? >>> >>> Anyway, we should definitely avoid 2 XEPs for comments. >>> >>> I wander if I'm missing something, so if anybody has tried an >>> implementation of the XEP-0303 and/or XEP-0277, please give feedbacks. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Goffi >>> >> > > -- With best regards, Sergey Dobrov, XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
