[standards-jig] JEP-0105 question

Krzysztof Szyntar criss at poczta.neostrada.pl
Mon Jan 26 16:00:06 UTC 2004


I've just read JEP-0105 (Tree Transfer Stream Initiation Profile)
and one detail seems strange to me:

"Sender" first sends tree-transfer stream initiation IQ, marking it
with a stream id, then for each subsequent file transfer uses "sid"
attribute of the file as the id.

IMHO, it would be more convenient to preserve the original id of the
stream. In this way it's much easier to keep track of many streams.
(I guess it is teoretically possible to have many streams active
simultainously)

So instead of:

<iq type='set' id='offer1' to='receiver at jabber.org/resource'>
  <si 
    xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/si' 
    id='*stream_id_1*'
    profile='http://jabber.org/protocol/si/profile/tree-transfer'>
    <tree ..>
    ..
    <file sid='*ft1*'
          .../>
    </tree>
  </si>
</iq>

and:
<iq type='set' id='offer2' to='receiver at jabber.org/resource'>
  <si xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/si' 
      id='*ft1*'
      profile='http://jabber.org/protocol/si/profile/file-transfer'>
    <file xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/si/profile/file-transfer'
          ../>
  </si>
</iq>

I'd rather send:
<iq type='set' id='offer1' to='receiver at jabber.org/resource'>
  <si 
    xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/si' 
    id='*stream_id_1*'
    profile='http://jabber.org/protocol/si/profile/tree-transfer'>
    <tree ..>
    ..
    <file id='*ft1*'
          .../>
    </tree>
  </si>
</iq>

and:
<iq type='set' id='offer2' to='receiver at jabber.org/resource'>
  <si xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/si' 
      id='*stream_id_1*'
      profile='http://jabber.org/protocol/si/profile/file-transfer'>
    <file id='*ft1*'
         xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/si/profile/file-transfer'
          ../>
  </si>
</iq>

thus preserving the stream id and repeating the id attribute of a
file.

It may appear as a trifle detail, but when I thought about the
possible implementation of the JEP, things are much easier and "clean"
this way. Was there any rationale behind the use of ids proposed in the
current edition of the JEP?

One more question - is anyone working on this JEP now? Is it expected
to become "Draft" soon?
  

-- 
Best regards,
 Krzysztof                          mailto:criss at poczta.neostrada.pl




More information about the Standards mailing list