On 14 January 2015 at 21:35, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14 Jan 2015, at 19:51, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am also in favour of the original protocol (iq result to signal end >> of result set), but also I feel like the behaviour Joe described is a >> perfectly reasonable thing to do, and XEP-0313 would be a singular >> problem for it. > > I don’t think that’s true. There’s no guarantee of immediate response on any > iq, and although in most cases responses will be ~= immediate, there are > several that are likely to involve callouts to external services, disk reads > and waiting for responses in the same way as MAM.
I think you're probably right. So are there any objections at all to removing <fin> and switching back to the iq response signalling the end of results? If not, I'll change it in the next revision and the problem that started this thread will, I believe, be solved. Regards, Matthew
