On 14 December 2016 at 14:50, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2016, at 11:46, Michal Piotrowski <michal.piotrowski@erlang-solu > tions.com> wrote: > > > > On 2 December 2016 at 18:18, forenjunkie <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ah now im understanding, basically the server should give you a list of >> contacts to query for messages. >> >> i would see this as a simply addition to MAM. >> > > Would you see it as a new parameter to MAM query? or rather a completely > new kind of iq to MAM service? > > > What I’m currently speccing up after a few side discussions with folks > recently is actually something that replaces the initial bind and does all > the bits that need doing for multi-client at once. I need to find a couple > of hours to finish writing it up so we can get it in the inbox and start > discussion. > > The Archive already could know what messages you read, because of >> chatmarkers. it would only need to hold the last read marker stanza id for >> every contact in roster, and perform some SQL magic on query. >> > > I can think of a situation where there is no roster (on XMPP server) but > still there is archive and we want to get list of contacts with unread > messages. > > > I like Kevin's idea with the iq and list of unread messages in a result. > Also I think it would be beneficial for clients to have not only id of the > unread message but also the content. > This could be optional, of course, but in some cases getting the unread > message content would make UI update easier. > > > I think the content of the messages is fairly straightforward to get from > a MAM query immediately afterwards. I was originally thinking that you’d > get sent the messages themselves, but I’m coming to the conclusion that it > doesn’t buy much, and makes the protocol more complex. I guess we’ll see > once I’ve finished speccing it whether this works or not. > > The client doesn't have to query the archive if it only wants to display > part of the unread message content on the UI. > > > That’s true, but is it significantly harder for the client to send that > query, if the server has already told it exactly the IDs it needs to query > between? > For me as a server dev it doesn't make much difference if the client asks for the message or not. >From my experience working with client devs (mostly mobile recently) I can say that they (who I worked with) would like to have everything what's needed in single result so that the app doesn't have to send additional requests. I agree this is not always possible and makes the protocol more complex. I just wanted to share my experience regarding this. > > /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] _______________________________________________
