[standards-jig] disco, x:data, etc...

Nick nick at devzero.homelinux.com
Thu Feb 20 20:37:18 UTC 2003

We _ALREADY_ have an addressing scheme in place to address entities. If 
you want your "node" to be visible slap a resource on it and fire off 
your IQ to it. Quit trying to circumvent the pre-existing addressing 

Nicholas Perez
Email: 	nick at devzero.homelinux.com
Jabber:	nickperez at jabber.org
Home:	303.759.0574

On 2003.02.20 12:13 Alexey Shchepin wrote:
> Hello, Matthew!
> On 20 Feb 2003 09:04:53 -0800, you said:
>  MAM> I request that you again read JEP-0050 before discounting it.
> Your first
>  MAM> argument against x-commands is not valid,
> Agreed, but "The payload can be any elements in an extension
> namespace" still
> says that <command/> can't contain all namespaces,
>  MAM> and the second is vague.
> [...]
>  MAM> Now for the second argument.  What exactly in x-commands is
> "hard
>  MAM> processing from both client and server side"?
> Not hard, it "more hard" that it can be to solve one simple task: to
> address IQ
> to node.
>  MAM> So far, you have brought forth concrete issues with "sessionid"
> and
>  MAM> "status":
>  MAM> 1) "sessionid" is currently required.  It's for tracking command
>  MAM> execution, in much the same way that web application servers
> (e.g.
>  MAM> Jakarta-Tomcat, WebLogic) use a similar variable.  Allow me go
> further
>  MAM> into this for the requester (aka "client-side"; 1.A) and the
> responder
>  MAM> (aka "server-side"; 1.B).
> [...]
> I not say that x-commands are bad, but they are bad to solve task of
> addressing
> to node, when we not want to track session, or to know status, etc...
> This is
> separate things, so I prefer to see how your JEP solves its task, but
> not
> addressing to node.  IMHO this is separate task.
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig

More information about the Standards mailing list