Why would you querry the whole archive?
if you open a chat with a contact you querry "Give me the last X
messages for contact A"
And if you open the chat window with contact B you do the same for
contact B.
I never did write a implementation of MAM myself, but if im reading the
XEP, you can filter with various attributes, you dont have to step
through EVERY message.
Am 02.12.2016 um 16:57 schrieb Kevin Smith:
On 2 Dec 2016, at 15:49, forenjunkie <[email protected]> wrote:
Its not written down somewhere that its up to the client, but it makes no sense
to put a selflimiting hard rule on a archiving XEP like MAM and exclude certain
messages per XEP rule.
We have store hints, the most prominent servers respect these. And it would
make no sense to not respect it if a client explicitly wishes for a message to
be stored.
Oh, it’d make lots of sense. Server admins can very reasonably want to choose
how their archive is populated, rather than having remote clients do so.
So to make it more clear, if i want to save a message on a current prosody or
ejabbered MAM implemenation, i can do this as a client with a store hint.
While that’s nice for you, Prosody and ejabberd are certainly not the whole
world ;)
you dont have to querry the whole archive, you just querry until you get a read
marker, then you know everything that comes before that was already read so i
dont have to query it.
This is untrue, though. If I have two contacts, it’s quite easy for me to have
unread messages for contact A that are hundreds or thousands of messages older
than my messages from contact B, all of which are read. If I merely read the
archive backwards until I found a read marker, I wouldn’t find the unread
messages for contact A.
/K
Am 02.12.2016 um 16:34 schrieb Kevin Smith:
On 2 Dec 2016, at 15:26, forenjunkie <[email protected]> wrote:
in a single chat conversation, it makes no sense to query unread messages.
I’m not sure that’s true at all, but putting that to the side for the minute...
you could just query the last 10 MAM Messages, if no readmarker comes with it,
query another 10. such a implementation of MAM would be very weird to me, but
you could do it and get only unread messages with it. So this already works
without problem with the MAM and 0333 XEP.
And in single chat its not possible to "miss" a message in between, which you
would want to query.
I think you’re missing the details of what I asked - how do you achieve this
where there are a sufficient number of messages that just keeping querying
until you have every message in your local archive isn’t viable?
And this is not a theory, XEP-0333 are stored by the server if the client
wishes that, and working implementations of MAM and 0333 together you can
witness for example in Conversations.
It’s not up to the client whether 333 is stored by the server or not.
All i see in this proposal is adding complexity to the whole process in
introducing another thing the server has to support.
Referring back to my previous question, can you provide an example of how to
achieve this case with just 313 and 333 (in protocol)?
/K
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
