Thomas D. Charron
tcharron at my-deja.com
Mon Aug 9 15:43:19 CDT 1999
Sorry, but from an architecture standpoint, this would be a very POOR example. You are now relying on an independent client's lists, which mean you are now relying on that particular user. This type of listing should be done by a client, with no interaction with other clients. A transport would be better for the equivilent of this. You're more talking about a client that acts as a transport, which is possible using the CURRENT protocol.. This is NOT a good example of peer to peer.
I also mentioned the metaserver idea becouse it one would need to be able to find these lists easily, without needing to cross your fingers and go for a web search..
You would also not be able to address easily in this case.. How would you address to a mailing list I own? SomeList at TwOlf.jabber.org will NOT work, as I would need a DNS entry for TwOlf.jabber.org.. ;-P
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:08:31 arh14 wrote:
>Ahh...a practical use for CTSP/CTCP transparency I was talking about :)
>If entities are all treated the same (same basic Jabber protocol), it
>would be very simple for people to set up their own meta-lists with
>routing and forwarding, etc.
>Hmm...abstracting this, then each client could have a set of "lists",
>which would each have a list of users. Some lists would be "private"
>(personal buddy list?, family list?), some could be "public", like a user
>group, which was viewable and messagable by everybody.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
More information about the JDev