On 22 January 2015 at 13:24, Georg Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: > * Kevin Smith <[email protected]> [2015-01-22 14:14]: >> > How would you deduplicate a mix of messages received normally and MAM >> > messages? Are you supposed to delete all normal messages when syncing up >> > with MAM? >> Yep. > > Hmm. My gut feeling is that I don't particularly like that approach. > Maybe we can really deprecate it with the unique-id idea. > > [unique IDs] >> When you’re at that stage, you’re getting into territory very similar >> to having a subscription to your MAM archive - which is one of the >> things I need to discuss with folks at the summit next week, as I >> think we probably need it (maybe even replacing carbons, maybe). > > I would like to conceptually separate unique-ID and MAM. I think there > are reasonable use cases for having a "live tracking" UID without > message storage (which also introduces security issues). > > Still, I like the idea of MAM subscriptions as a replacement or > augmentation for carbons - where users don't mind central storage of > their messages.
I'll just note that MAM doesn't have to equal permanent storage. My original intention was always to allow the server to expire old messages (e.g. keep the last 30 days only), and if you extend this - it doesn't have to actually store anything at all. A subscription would just match messages going into the archive. Queries would always return 0 results. If that's what you want. In this sense, mod_smacks almost equates to "storage" as well. It's just that is used for all stanza types and a shorter duration. Regards, Matthew
