[Standards] POP/PEP/pubsub

Joe Hildebrand hildjj at gmail.com
Thu Jun 7 15:05:09 CDT 2007


On May 31, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> Perhaps what we ought to do is put a recommendation in PEP about  
>> what item ID to use when you mean "Please store a single instance  
>> of this".  For example:
>
> I think private storage is not PEP but some other profile of  
> pubsub, which perhaps has some features in common with PEP (e.g.,  
> filtered notifications) but not others (e.g., unlike PEP the  
> default access model is whitelist with the whitelist empty since  
> only the owner needs to have access, and multiple items are allowed  
> since we care about storage rather than pure eventing). Perhaps  
> this can be handled by the previous suggestion of "+private" on the  
> end of the NodeID (I'm still a bit leery about that since pubsub  
> nodes in general are not supposed to have semantic meaning, but  
> XEP-0060 does say that such meaning is OK for particular  
> applications of pubsub). I am in the midst of clarifying the  
> relationship between pubsub and PEP, so hopefully that will help us  
> understand which features can be re-used and which features need to  
> be newly defined in order to create the new private node  
> functionality.

I'm suggesting that the single-item-ness of a node is orthogonal from  
its private-ness.  For example, I might only ever want to publish a  
single geoloc, even though that's not private.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand




More information about the Standards mailing list