On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:01:18AM +0200, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Samstag, 27. Mai 2017 10:22:27 CEST Daniel Gultsch wrote: > > 2017-05-27 6:39 GMT+02:00 Evgeny Khramtsov <[email protected]>: > > > Fri, 26 May 2017 18:41:17 +0200 > > > > > > Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> would sending in presence work? > > > > > > If we choose to use presences, then why even bother with putting caps in > > > features? > > > > Fair question. Maybe to avoid a race condition where the client > > queries the disco node before receiving the presence? > > I would like to add that the server sending a presence is only consistent if > the client has sent presence. The client might want to know the servers > features before that.
Why is there that requirement? A server knows the session exists, and can send any stanza of its own to all of the connected resources, I don’t see why a presence wouldn’t fit there. > > In addition, clients might want to get updates on the servers features even > though they themselves never send presence. This would be handled just fine by having the server send presence updates to the “invisible” client. Having it negociated by the client adding a feature to their own stream:features may be useful, but I can also see the opposite argument that sending it unconditionally wouldn’t break anything. Thanks, -- Emmanuel Gil Peyrot
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
