* Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> [2017-12-11 15:50]: > On 23 Nov 2017, at 17:11, Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> wrote: > > For me it doesn't ever make sense to store type=groupchat messages in > > the user archive. That archive will be incomplete, thus forcing me to > > query the MUC servers archive upon join anyway. > > I've become unconvinced by this - surely the archive will be complete > for its intention, which is to archive those messages the user received. > It won't contain messages that the user wasn't in the MUC for, but that > seems like the correct behaviour.
So the contents of the user archive will depend on the user's presence? I would've thought the main feature of MAM is quite the opposite, i.e. to also make those messages retrievable the user *didn't* receive anyway. > I think this is another example of the 'two types of MAM'. Some people > want to use MAM for 'complete sync', whereby the download all the > messages the user has seen, and maintain a full local archive. For this, > ISTM you're going to want gc in your archive. Wouldn't both types of people want their client to catch up with the MUC history after network hiccups? So the client will have to query the MUC MAM archive either way, no? So the groupchat messages stored in the user archive would end up being only a subset of the messages the user has seen, no? Holger _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
