[standards-jig] Presence priority finetuning

Sami Haahtinen ressu at ressukka.net
Fri Jun 21 20:05:00 UTC 2002

On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 10:31:50AM -0400, Julian Missig wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 03:24, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> > > 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...

(lets just assume that we make up somekind of priority system for these)

one client might want to declare that it wants all headlines, but
doesn't want pubsub FOO, although it supports FOO.

it is much harder for the server make this decision for the client. if
the client does not declare that it wants the traffic for something, it
would be looked at like the clients are looked at now when they declare
0 priority.

ofcourse this could be done with the server probe too, but none of the
current JEPs would be suitable for the job.. (well, none of them would
be suitable for the other way either =)


			  -< 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