[standards-jig] Checking for implementations

Adam Theo theo at theoretic.com
Wed Apr 17 03:00:27 UTC 2002


David Waite wrote:
> This is why I'm not in favor of the change. Browse is historical; it 
> might not be the prettiest thing in the world, if we started from 
> scratch we would probably end up with something completely different and 
> IMHO much better. But it is in wide use already, and it was never made 
> clear that it was not an 'official' standard (since we didn't have 
> 'official' standards back then).
> 
> Either it gets pushed out as is, or we actually open it up _completely_ 
> for change; we start trying to figure out the cases where it would be 
> used and how to adapt it for all of those.  If we do open it up for 
> change, we need to make sure the name does not conflict, and that it 
> doesn't have a 'jabber:*' namespace until we are finished with it and it 
> is accepted as a standard.

Ah, I see. When you lay it out like that, it is a very convincing 
argument. After thinking on it for a few seconds, I agree with you. Make 
a change, as minimal as possible, if even at all. Keep it "browse". But 
also let's start thinking about a better way to do this functionality. I 
am not that familiar with the ins and outs of browse, but your statement 
that browse is just a hodge-podge of different mechanisms makes me 
believe it would be best to make generic pubsub, search & discovery, and 
indexing mechanisms and then make a browsing v2.0 out of those.

> Of course, I make no secret that I dislike browse. It is directory 
> services and pub/sub and introspection (and even feature negotiation, by 
> some people's definition) all rolled into a tiny ball. I've always 
> gotten the feeling that a large part of its design was based solely on 
> the need for a better agents retrieval mechanism and a better way of 
> representing users in a groupchat. But I am perfectly happy to help get 
> it accepted as a standard; then the community can decide if they need 
> something greater later on down the line we can always transition - we 
> would already have to do transitioning if that something greater was 
> available today.

What do you not like about browse, specifically? Or are there posts in 
the archives which sum up your thoughts nicely?

> I dunno - I really need feedback from the people on this jig :-) I know 
> which way _I_ want to vote, but it really matters more what the users of 
> the system want - and because browse was written before there was a 
> clear way for feedback to be cast, I'm not clear on what people want.

I as an interested party and end user want to see Jabber use the best 
technology and methods it possibly can. I care *nothing* for backwards 
compaability or respect for legacy systems. I feel it is perfectly 
acceptable to scrap the old to make way for the fresh and new. 
Continually building off old stuff to make semi-solutions is only 
acceptable to a (short) point.

> - Does anyone (besides myself) see a need for something greater in the 
> near future? Or is the general concensus that the current features meet 
> the forseeable needs?

Like I said, I am not familiar with the ins and outs of browsing, nor 
all the use cases for it. But I do always abide by my personal 
philosophy of a nirvana state for software. That nirvana can only be 
attained by clearly thinking about the present and future without 
letting the past hinder your options.

Hope this helps.

-- 
     /\  Adam Theo, Age 22, Tallahassee FL USA
    //\\   Email & Jabber: theo at theoretic.com
   //  \\  (Boycotting AOL, therefore no AIM or ICQ)
=//====\\=  Theoretic Solutions: http://www.theoretic.com
//  ||  \\     "Bringing Ideas Together"
     ||      Jabber Protocol: http://www.jabber.org
     ||         "The Coolest IM on the Planet"
     ||  "A Free-Market Socialist Patriotic American
     ||      Buddhist Political Philosopher."




More information about the Standards mailing list