[Standards-JIG] Re: Proposal for a solution to transport

Magnus Henoch mange at freemail.hu
Mon Sep 6 13:14:52 UTC 2004


James Bunton <james at delx.cjb.net> writes:
> If we're going to do this on the server, lets do it properly, with
> client support too. That's my intention for the long run. But the
> current situation is a major user experience flaw. It's a huge
> put-off to potential Jabber users.

First of all, I think it's great that you have started not only
thinking about this problem but also doing something about it, with a
working prototype already available.  I wrote up my protocol mostly as
a spinal reaction that "this should be in the server", but I'm no
longer entirely convinced that it has to be so, as existing clients
are no worse off than before.

> Exactly right. The proposal  for a server-side shared list before I didn't 
> like.
> I think it would be great to be able to subscribe to rosters on various 
> servers. By default you're subscribed to the roster on your Jabber server. 
> When you register with a gateway, part of the registration process would 
> involve registering with the roster on that server.
>
> Note that this isn't pubsub. The rosters that you're registered with
> would send you iq packets that look just like a normal roster packet
> from your server, they would just come from a different place. The
> client could then put these contacts in a separate group.
>
> There are obvious issues with this, such as the client having to
> keep a list of rosters that it's registered with (to determine what
> packets to accept and which to ignore, etc).
>
> That's my vision of a *real* shared roster groups protocol. It would
> be useful for transports, as well as workgroup environments.

Why isn't this pubsub?  Wouldn't JEP-0140 (Shared Groups) do pretty
much all of this?

> Back to my current proposal though. It fixes the short-term need,
> with minimal effort for both transport and client developers. It
> does not require server changes (which must be much more thoroughly
> tested, and are more disruptive), and is ready to use right
> now. More testing would be good however.
>
> I just need to write it up as an informational JEP, and get support
> in a few more clients. We have a Psi patch thanks to Remko, which
> with a little more testing should be ready for inclusion (please
> Justin! =), and hopefully we can get support in the other major
> clients, such as Exodus, Tkabber, JAJC, Pandion and probably a few
> others.

Maybe this could be merged into JEP-0100, Gateway Interaction.

> This simple change would make a new MSN convert's life much simpler,
> and should then make it easier for people to adopt Jabber.

A very good idea.  Thanks for your work!

Magnus




More information about the Standards mailing list