[standards-jig] Presence priority finetuning

Julian Missig julian at jabber.org
Thu Jun 20 22:29:09 UTC 2002


On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:31, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> I don't usually see too many people running more than one client at the
> same time, but as jabber gets more popular the special client for
> special purposes get more common, also pubsub is one of the areas i'm
> pretty worried about at the moment..
> 
> currently we have one simple entry in the presence tag that tells the
> server where to dump the messages that were not ment to any special
> client. But there is a need for more specific way of telling the server
> where to send some message.
> 
> ok, lets assume this (this is the case i started with) i have client A,
> which handles messages, chatting and so on.. then i have client B which
> i currently use as a secondary client to test things and play with
> mostly. the machine that client A sits on is ment for work, and the
> other machine is ment for browsing. What i wanted to do was to direct
> all headlines to client B, but with current system it is not possible,
> without sending all messages to client B.
> 
> (at this point someone might bring in mod_filter, but it is not a
> solution, it's a workaround)
> 
> so that first example is just for convinience. but how about if we bring
> in pubsub, we have a client that handles the published data for
> namespace FOO, lets say it's a headline client, showing stock tickers..
> we need a way to tell the server that this client handles the data for
> this type of messages..
> 
> there are a few solutions i can think of just now, the server would do a
> feature negotiation with the client when it connects, which imho is not
> the right solution. other solution might be for the client to tell the
> server what it wants pretty much like the current priority stuff.
> 
> both of these break when the client or the server does not support these
> methods..
> 
> thoughts?


Yeah, I've had these thoughts. Explain to me, though, why server doing a
browse or a feature negotiation or whatever you people finally decide on
for features on the connecting client would be wrong? How is that
fundamentally worse than the client just declaring it? I think it's
better than the client sending a message to the server, since clients
will already be built to respond to feature negotiation or browse
requests from other clients... why not make the server ask for that info
as well?

Julian




More information about the Standards mailing list