[standards-jig] Presence priority finetuning

Julian Missig julian at jabber.org
Fri Jun 21 14:31:50 UTC 2002


On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 03:24, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> 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.

Well, how is requiring the client to tell the server what it wants any
better? If the client doesn't tell the server what it wants, you have
the same problem (server has to guess).

The complexity is "forced" only if they wish to support presense
priority fine-tuning. And even simple clients should support feature
negotion/browse/whatever is decided upon... or else they may end up
getting crap they don't want.

> 
> > 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.

I'm still not seeing how that is fundamentally better than just having
the server ask the client...

Julian
-- 
email: julian at jabber.org
jabber:julian at jabber.org




More information about the Standards mailing list