[Standards-JIG] JEP-0030 - Disco to resources

Chris Mullins chris.mullins at coversant.net
Wed Apr 19 05:08:12 UTC 2006


Vinod Wrote:

> Can anyone please point me to an instance where "connected" 
> resources are being used for a practical purpose?

[Warning, Minor Rant Ahead]

In the more general case, one of the few things I've always disliked
about XMPP is the "equal treatment" the various flavors of JID's get. 

I *hate* that I can subscribe to "server", "user at server", or
"user at server/resource". I can add any of those JID types to my roster. I
can perform privacy rules based on this. I can do weird pubsub things
this way. MUC has stricter requirements, which I've always liked. 

I always thought it should always be "user at server" for all but the
fewest of few cases. This applies to just about everywhere resource
based JID's are used.

Everyone then puts forth these strange use cases where they say, "but I
need to add user at server/resource to my roster!", and from there the
argument falls apart with "we need to support it for legacy reasons". 

I would *love* to see xmppbis strongly recommend against doing this, or
even recommend servers kick back errors in a large number of these
cases. Especially the presence subscription and roster management
case...

In the 4 years (or is it 5?) I've been doing XMPP and Jabber word, I've
never once come across a need to do things this way, and never seen a
customer need to do it either. I've built clients, servers, bots, weird
in-between hybrids, and just about everything in-between, and there's
always a better answer to requiring a resource based JID. 

-- 
Chris Mullins



More information about the Standards mailing list