[Standards] pubsub/pep auto-creation
Rachel Blackman
rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Thu Mar 22 11:24:46 CDT 2007
> These seem to be more generic publish-subscribe features to me, and
> were
> the use cases that were deemed too complex when we started out this
> whole PEP thing in the first place.
The argument for PEP, as I recall, was not that the publication flow
itself was necessarily too complex, but that pubsub was just plain
overkill for that sort of a case.
With pubsub, two different clients of the same user might publish to
two entirely different pubsub services. Moreover, if I logged in
with a client other than the one I had subscribed to a node with, I
might not know what the node meant. It was entirely up to the /
client/ to maintain a mapping of node-to-jid for every single pubsub
node it cared about. That's fine for more generic cases, even though
it flies in the face of everything we've ever talked about in terms
of 'simple clients, complex servers.'
There was no sensible 'this node = this jid' mapping. It was easy to
see 'oh, this romeo-tune-pubsub' node is a User Tune Data thing, but
not to know what jid it meant if you hadn't subscribed to it on that
client or if you'd lost your pubsub mappings due to a reinstall or
whatever (especially since it wasn't like clients were necessarily
naming machine-generated nodes in such a human-readable fashion). We
had all kinds of personal 'publish' XEPs which basically were never
getting adopted because the overhead was so high, especially since at
least a few people were trying to come up with ad-hoc manners of
storing pubsub subscriptions in the per-server private XML storage,
and... it just wasn't pretty.
During that, it was pointed out that XMPP already has a service which
responds on behalf of the user at the user's JID -- namely, the
server when you send a request without a resource. For pubsub things
that are tied to a specific user, PEP solves /all the major problems/
and massively lowers the bar to adoption of any PEP-based XEPs. (As
soon as servers support it, anyway.)
This is *one* situation where the PEP specification is not ideal if
we want to reduce the amount of traffic flying back and forth. One.
The PEP specification on the whole still solves the problem it's
meant to solve in a way that is orders of magnitude better than the
full pubsub specification. ;)
--
Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com>
Trillian Messenger - http://www.trillianastra.com/
More information about the Standards
mailing list