> And what about you previous statement: > > > There would be a definite elegance in "using PubSub" everywhere, and > > an early MIX version was written this way > > So you failed to build "elegant" solution and you don't think I'm right? [Steve Kille]
I think what we are doing with MIX is also elegant. "definite elegance" was intended to convey both positive and negative meaning > > > PubSub and MIX are both key XMPP services and have distinct > > characteristics. > > Key? There is not even MIX yet. And pubsub usage is very limit at the > moment. > > > PubSub is a useful building block for MIX and can also be a useful > > building block for other XMPP services, such as FDP (XEP-0346) > > Yeah. If you build something which cannot be reused without ad-hoc > elements (and thus ad-hoc code) you can always say "it's a building block". [Steve Kille] I think that a MIX goal is to use PubSub "as is". I am sure there are things that can be done to improve PubSub, but this is definitely out of scope for the MIX work Steve _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
