Hi Matthew, Thanks for making the changes. I'm really in favour of them. I see there was no update to the PRs nor here on the mailing list. What needs to happen in order to proceed with these?
Alos, I have a comment (or rather question) regarding the new way of querying the archive based on message UIDs. I assume that by UID, you mean the origin-id as set by the client sending the message. If so, it didn't find it clearly stated in your proposed changes nor in the current version of MAM XEP. If not origin-id is meant here, I'd like to know what UID means in this context. Best regards Michal Piotrowski Software Architect at https://www.erlang-solutions.com/ email: [email protected] skype: twitter/github/medium: michalwski On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 13:17, Florian Schmaus <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/22/20 12:07 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 15:50, Florian Schmaus <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 4/21/20 2:32 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:> On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at > 16:20, > > > You're going to hate me, but one more thing... > > > > > > Current MAM says that servers SHOULD include a count. The problem > with > > > this is that it's extremely slow on any system with more than > trivial > > > retention periods, since this tends to degenerate into either a > > COUNT(*) > > > SQL query (table-scan-tastic) or a standalone counter (which then > > drifts > > > and is a contention point). > > > > > > The majority of client libraries appear to ignore the count values > > > anyway, as far as I can tell, so can we relax this to a MAY? > (XEP-0059 > > > is MAY-but-only-if, which is arguably really a SHOULD anyway). > > > > I think such a relaxation would require a namespace bump. > > > > I'm not convinced. In any case, servers that already comply with the > > SHOULD will probably continue to do so, new servers may be more likely > > not to, but given that clients don't really use the (unreliable) info > > today then I don't think we lose anything in practice. > > I could follow that argumentation in this case. It's probably just me, > but I am very conservative when it comes to relaxations of keywords. > > - Florian > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > -- Code Sync & Erlang Solutions Conferences <https://www2.codesync.global/l/23452/2019-11-13/6sypwx> * * Code BEAM Lite ITA - Bologna: Rescheduled Code BEAM STO - Stockholm: Rescheduled ElixirConf EU - Warsaw: 7-8 October 2020 Code Mesh - London: 5-6 November 2020 * * Erlang Solutions cares about your data and privacy; please find all details about the basis for communicating with you and the way we process your data in our Privacy Policy <https://www.erlang-solutions.com/privacy-policy.html>. You can update your email preferences or opt-out from receiving Marketing emails here <https://www2.erlang-solutions.com/email-preference?epc_hash=JtO6C7Q2rJwCdZxBx3Ad8jI2D4TJum7XcUWcgfjZ8YY>.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
