[Standards-JIG] NEW: Message Archiving
David Yitzchak Cohen
lists+jabber_standards at bigfatdave.com
Wed Jun 9 23:34:26 UTC 2004
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 04:36:30AM EDT, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:46:51PM -0400, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote:
> > Well, if you don't do the common practice of "latching onto" a resource
> > after the initial message, you _can_ pull off the disappearing resource
> > trick, rather than getting an error message back from the server when
> > you try to continue a chat with a guy whom you see is clearly online.
> Server must not return an error in such case, but route the message to
> the active resource with the highest priority.
> "Latching onto" a resource seems a good behaviour to me. If one starts
> a new client for the same JID, without closing the already active one,
> then it doesn't mean he want all conversations to be switched.
Here's the thing, though: if you start a new client for the same JID and
don't want all your chats switched, all you have to do is use a lower
priority. If you're connecting a new client for the same JID and _do_
want all your chats switched, though, simply picking a higher priority
_should_ work, or so you'd think. However, when others have already
"latched onto" your other resource, they prevent you from being able
to continue those chats without having to juggle your two open clients.
You can't just smoothly pass on the chat to your new client (the other
guy shouldn't even have to notice you've changed clients - and he
should _certainly_ not have to open a new chat window and screw up the
threading), because the guy on the other side isn't letting you.
> But now
> I see I could make this behaviour configurable in my client.
If you ask me, the "latching on" behavior is a Very Bad Thing (TM), since
it undermines a fundamental capability of the XMPP protocols (presence
priorities - allowing the recipient (who knows best) to route incoming
messages to whatever client he's currently using, and to change that
route at will ... "latching on" short-circuits that routing mechanism).
Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor?
It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right?
Please visit this link:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards