[Standards-JIG] Roster Subscription Synchronisation

Tijl Houtbeckers thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Wed Sep 15 01:12:06 UTC 2004


On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:09:42 +0100, Richard Dobson <richard at dobson-i.net>  
wrote:

>>> This is exactly the problem it can end up creating a "both"  
>>> subscription
>>
>> OK, I'm gonna cut you off right here. I addressed this. Clients  
>> supporting our protocol will NEVER make this a "both" when it should be  
>> "to". With our proposal subscriptions will be exactly in sync! Without  
>> it, it's problematic. THAT is why we need the protocol. STILL, I have  
>> suggested a simple way to get around this. Again, you just ignore what  
>> I already wrote.
>
> I did not ignore what you wrote, infact I pointed out why what you are  
> trying to do doesnt really make sence and can cause problems if the  
> client does not support your spec. IMO making a false subscription to  
> try and communicate a subscription meaning the reverse doesnt make sence  
> and thus is wrong and some other method should be found to transmit the  
> "to" subscriptions, such as using JEP-0093.

What are saying anyway Richard? Did you say 'This is exactly the problem  
it can end up creating a "both" subscription' or that you think it's  
bad/unclean/hacky protocol? We know which one right? And you and I both  
know it *does* work, since it's clearly put there in my reply. So instead  
you rave on about protocol. Then a bit later on we talk about protocol, I  
put forth why you can't call this an unclean hack and instead of answering  
to that you bring on the "doesn't work" routine again.

This is too typical of trying to discuss with you on this topic. Not only  
do you have a hard time remembering what I said (even if you did accept it  
before) you also seem to forget what you've said yourself. Thanks for  
trying I guess, you put about as much time into this discussion as me (and  
we've been able to come to an agreement in the past), but if you don't  
mind I'll save my energy from now on for more constructive discussions  
that can help this proposal and the community forward instead or running  
in circles after you.




More information about the Standards mailing list