On Dienstag, 13. Februar 2018 21:42:56 CET Simon Friedberger wrote: > >> ... > > You are mixing multiple problems with multiple solutions, which was > > probably in an effort to get the whole picture, but also leads to > > confusion. I personally would like to concentrate on solving C4, where > > you pointed out a promising candidate for a solution: E2 > > Indeed. Mostly because I still don't think that I understand the > complete picture. > For example, if we are only trying to solve C4, is that really worth the > effort? > Does it do anything more than save a round-trip?
Yes. The "round-trip" you’re speaking of may be excessively expensive. Essentially, if a client wants to know the stanza-id of a message it sent, it needs to do a MAM query starting with the last known stanza-id and do some matching. There is no other way (because you don’t get carbons for messages you sent yourself). No client is doing this afaik. Clients which do not do this have to resort to some kind of heuristic when syncing MAM at a later point. So we’re solving a "round trip or annoying heuristic" situation. This is worse than it sounds, because it makes clients much more complex (or I am missing something; that would be great.): If a client wants to refer to messages internally by some unique ID, it would be natural to use the stanza-id, because that ID can be used with MAM queries, too. However, that’s not possible if you don’t know the stanza-id for outbound messages. So instead, clients need to add a layer of indirection with yet-another client-internal ID for the message (probably most of the time some type of auto-increment integer). kind regards, Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
