[Standards-JIG] NEW: JEP-0142 (Workgroups)
matt at jivesoftware.com
Mon Sep 13 05:26:23 UTC 2004
> My only comments so far are on examples 6-9, "Join With Form":
> I would be inclined to make this an explicit "get, then set"
> procedure, like jabber:iq:request. In reality, I'm sure that
> the majority of these systems will need to gather at least
> some data, and the edge case where no data is required could
> be satisfied by sending back no form:
I can actually think of a fair number of use-cases where one might want
to not require a form. However, I don't think your idea is even mutually
exclusive with the current version of the JEP. There is no reason that a
user couldn't start the exchange with a "get" to look for form data
instead of trying to join right away. However, one thing that could be
clarified is what happens when the user does a "get" but no form is
required. Does that make sense, or am I missing something?
> At this point, the server could also pass back
> <queue-notifications/> such that the user's client knows in
> advance whether it is supported. The client can then leave
> it out of their "set" query, if it isn't supported.
This seems like reasonable behavior on a "get" request.
> I'm also curious to know why the metadata is considered to be
> different to a form, if the form is going to be gathering
> metadata as well. For a web-based system, the app is going
> to be filling out the form for the user, and it might as well
> include the metadata in the form. For a Jabber client-based
> system, it wouldn't seem to make sense to pass the same sort
> of metadata to the server.
I think you're right. I believe the metadata wording is from an early
copy of the JEP before we had added data forms. I'll clean-up it up --
all standard meta-data should be handled through forms. It's always
possible that there could be implementation-specific meta-data, but
that's beyond the scope of the JEP. For example, in our implementation,
a user can pass in the agent they prefer to chat with -- if the server
is able to route to that agent, it will.
> All in all though, I think this looks pretty good for a first
> release. It covers much more ground than I was able to cover
> in the system I wrote. :-)
Thanks for the feedback!
More information about the Standards