[JDEV] Message timestamps.

Scott Robinson quad at jabber.org
Sat Oct 9 19:01:51 CDT 1999


Interleaved response.

Scott.

* Thomas Charron translated into ASCII [Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 12:13:57PM -0500][<199910091713.MAA26022 at ductape.net>]
> Quoting Scott Robinson <quad at jabber.org>:
> > * Thomas Charron translated into ASCII [Fri, Oct 08, 1999 at 06:14:32PM
> > -05=
> > 00][<199910082314.SAA18561 at ductape.net>]
> > > Quoting Daniel Arbuckle <djarb at wvc-omak.ctc.edu>:
[snap]
> > > see, to the TRANSPORTS, the message went out into etherx land, and
> <SNIP>
> > Ahh! I implement it transport level with the knowledge that etherx (or
> > whatever router we may be going through) may go through multiple servers!
> > However, since Jabber is a transport level protocol, the tunnels between
> > transports are ignored.
> > etherx remains the same.
> 
>   Ahh..  I've been looking at some application use of Etherx that would really
> not use the Jabber protocol at all, and what I would like to see is a tag that
> could be used interchangably eithin either the XML streams thru etherx, or the
> Jabber protocol itself.  It would also make it easier to transfer this data into
> the message packet by the end transport, by simply copying the tags of the
> stream into the tags of the message.
> 

Hee. I've been thinking about that as well and left it out of the document
for a very specific reason. We can't specify any sort of XML standard into
the etherx server/streams protocol. (though a lot of it is very iffy right
now) I only specified for the Jabber-XML protocol because that's all we
really could pin down.

> > >   The transports will then need to ADD the routing data of the Stream to
> > Only concerned about transport level, not router. I tried to make the
> > language specific. Should I edit to make it more strong?
> 
>   Not really 'more strong', but a slight modofication.  Your specs also have a
> 'sent' and 'recieved' information, but I'd like to see a more dynamic tag, so we
> could have 'stored', 'attemptedsend', 'archived', etc..  What about something
> like this:
> 
> <route>
> <timestamp type='sent'>
> <id>Id of marker</id>
> 19991009T0635
> </timestamp>
> </route>
> 

I only had sent and received in there because they are the base minimum.
"stored", "attemptedsend", "archived" are just the beginning of further tags
I had mind. ;) (though I named them differently)

The great thing about XML is that because I specified only sent and
received, it doesn't force us to them. I just believed that in all
situations, they would be a base minimum.

In the situations of "stored", "attemptedsend", and "archived", I believe it
would be better to add an "type" tag (similar to what you have above) and
use the "sent" and "recevied" attributes for timestamping.

I know this could be improved upon. Ideas?

>   Of course, the use of tags versus attributes is up to opinion, and I just
[snap]

According to XML recommended usage, the timestamp should be an attribute. ;)

Do I smell a flame war coming?


> --- 
> Thomas Charron
[snip]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/attachments/19991009/68c58f5b/attachment-0002.pgp>


More information about the JDev mailing list