[standards-jig] Presence priority finetuning

Sami Haahtinen ressu at ressukka.net
Fri Jun 21 07:24:49 UTC 2002

On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 06:29:09PM -0400, Julian Missig wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:31, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> > 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..
> 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? 

this is going to work just fine until there is one client that does not
support the named protocol, then the server has to start guessing what
the client actually supports.

also, as there has been discussion before, this will force some
complexity on the clients.

> 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?

i think the best way is for the client to somehow declare a priority for
some message type, as in for pubsub with namespace foo priority is 99
and with others it's -1 (is there such thing anymore?)

but then again, the client needs to somehow verify that the server also
supports the priorities, so that the client is not connected in vain.


			  -< Sami Haahtinen >-
      -[ Notify immediately if you do not receive this message ]-
	-< 2209 3C53 D0FB 041C F7B1  F908 A9B6 F730 B83D 761C >-

More information about the Standards mailing list