[Standards-JIG] NEW: Message Archiving

christian.stange christian.stange at telex.no
Fri Jun 11 07:45:41 UTC 2004


*I* am currently spending way to much time getting client developers to 
log filetransfers! I consider it a bug that you can send, or try to 
send a file without any one (sender, server or receiver ) ever have any 
proper tracedata of that particulate type of "message".

Log data are important because they document the conversation. If you 
omit parts of the information, like what files they swap or when the 
left and came back, you are loosing the integrity of the log.

I see that it does provide us with some complications when it comes to 
filter what we wish to log , and that  this kind of log might be better 
handled at the server.

But if we wish to put in the client for message archiving purposes, we 
better log as much data about the  conversation  as possible. If not, 
the message archive is useless.


> Just like you log message elements almost verbatim, you can log 
> presence,
> iq, or virtually any other element almost verbatim.

The issue with iq is that there are so many kinds of things that you 
wouldn't
want to log, and so it would be a matter of picking and choosing (and 
even
then, this doesn't apply merely to iq.  you wouldn't want to log IBB 
message
packets either. ;-) ).

For example, a File Transfer iq request can end up invoking a SOCKS5
Bytestreams iq request, and the latter is not interesting at all.  Even 
half
of the File Transfer iq itself is not interesting...  who needs to log 
that
silly x:data form?  With messages and presence, the client can omit 
fields.
I suppose the same could be done with iq, but iq isn't meant to be 
malleable
like that.




More information about the Standards mailing list