On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Yann Leboulanger <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just read the version 0.16 of Jingle File Transfer XEP, and saw that > you removed the <request> flow. > Just to mention that it is used in Gajim to re-request the file at the > end of a tranfer when hash was wrong. > Does that happen without user interaction? Why should a retransfer not lead to the same errors when both implementations didn't change? > I don't think it's a good thing to removed a feature without a > replacement, that's not very nice for clients to remove a feature they > implemented. > Indeed. I think features should be removed if there are no known implementations of it or there is at least a replacement XEP available. > Please note also that this <request> thing was used by XEP-0329 that is > now no more implementable! > > Is there a way to have it back in the XEP or have a replacement XEP for > that feature? > A new XEP would be nice implementing similar functionality. This would lower the barrier of implementation for basic Jingle file-transfer (so no requests and no multi-files) but allow more advanced clients to provide the functions if needed. Cheers, Tobias
