On 19 August 2014 19:30, Evgeny Khramtsov <[email protected]> wrote: > Tue, 19 Aug 2014 10:21:42 -0700 > Kurt Zeilenga <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 19, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On 19 August 2014 17:21, Evgeny Khramtsov <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:30:18 +0100 >> >> Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > You can implement as many finite state machines as you like. But >> > this is not the XEP for that, this is just to turn them on/off. >> > Let's keep it simple for once, folks :) >> >> I have to agree with Matthew. What this XEP offers is, by itself, >> useful. Yes, it quite simplistic, leaving the choice of how to >> optimize to the server. This is useful by itself. >> >> I personally rather not go down the rathole of 'exact finite state >> machines'... or 'profiles'. But, hey, if that's what you want, you >> can write a XEP just as well as anyone else. > > Seems like you don't get me. What we really need is to throttle > presences when the client is in 'inactive' state. I don't think there > are multiple ways in doing this. > I, as an XMPP server developer, want to take well described FSM and > implement it. > Again, as an XMPP server developer I don't know what to do with client > inactivity. It's pointless for me.
There are definitely multiple ways of doing it. I've already implemented two or three different approaches over several years, and I can always think of more things that I would like to try. If you just want an out-of-the-box protocol to implement and not have to think about, you're right, CSI is certainly not what you are looking for. Maybe down the line someone will provide that on top of CSI, but it's not something I'm pursuing right now. Regards, Matthew
