[standards-jig] Checking for implementations
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