[Foundation] motions

Iain shigeoka iain at shigeoka.com
Thu Jun 12 00:42:29 CDT 2003


On Wednesday, Jun 11, 2003, at 19:16 US/Pacific, Peter Saint-Andre 
wrote:

> I think it would be really useful for JSF members to vote +1 on a Last
> Call motion only if they intend to implement the protocol (either in an
> open-source project or in a commercial product). If the protocol needs
> to be implemented in both a server and a client, I think it would be
> best to require at least two server developers and at least three
> client developers to say that they plan to implement the protocol
> before going to Last Call (same for components). For client-only
> protocols (e.g., XHTML IM), we might require five client developers to
> say that they plan to implement.

+1

> 1. Are there at least two server developers who will publicly state
>    that they plan to implement "Flexible Offline Message Retrieval"
>    as defined in JEP-0013? I know that there are representatives of

[snip]

>    Do you guys need and want this protocol? Will you implement it in
>    your servers?

We (Jive) need and will implement JEP-0013 (no promises on when - heh). 
I wonder a bit about the bandwidth savings listed as the first 
justification. For most messages I've seen, the message list (header 
dump) is probably going to be longer than the messages themselves. :) 
Still the other two reasons seem like good reasons. I'd primarily want 
it so that messages can be left on the server for later retrieval (i 
sometimes login, get the flood of offline messages, and then my client 
crashes and I've lost all the messages).

-iain




More information about the Members mailing list