[Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: Address lists

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Thu Jun 8 10:50:27 UTC 2006


> Can you use two lists in this approach? And can you merge together?
> Maybe it is of no practical use anyway, it seemed to me it might be
> useful.
>   
Sending to two lists would be a simple matter of:

<message to='multicast.montague.net' from='conference.montague.net/romeo'>
   <list xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocols/address/list' name='list 1' hash='0ea29eb12ceff84d6300d66170eeebc0'/>
   <list xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocols/address/list' name='list 2' hash='624678c1ce4f0cf6497b79cd9bc5822e'/>
    <body>Julie, I love you</body>
</message>


Merging one or more lists into another list could be done as the following:

<message to='multicast.montague.net' from='conference.montague.net/romeo'>
   <list xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/address/list' name='list 1' hash='0ea29eb12ceff84d6300d66170eeebc0'>
       <merge name='list 2' hash='624678c1ce4f0cf6497b79cd9bc5822e'/>
   </list>
</message>

Here list 2 is being merged into list 1.
> But yes, you are right the use of all that URLs and bcc's and so on from
> the jep-0033. Maybe I could remake it.
>   
Cool, that would make it a bit simpler and cleaner IMO, hope i've helped.
> There are two possibilities. One, a newer version was created, but noone
> deleted the old. Then the old one can be still used with the hash, since
> the new one has different hash.
>   
That's an interesting idea, multiple versions of lists using hashes, it 
might make things a little over complex though, personally I would opt 
for only keeping the most latest version of the list, makes things a bit 
simpler and easier to implement.
> Another, the one sender wants does not exist there in that given version
> (with that hash). The multicast component finds out it does not have the
> requested list, does not broadcast anything and send the stanza back as
> an error. As stated in the protoJEP, it MUST include the original
> stanza. Therefore the sender can take the stanza, recreate the list and
> send it again - resolve the crisis situation, when it happens.
>   
Ah sorry didn't notice that part that sounds ok, some examples of the 
various error conditions would be useful to make it a bit clearer, and 
less likely to miss :)

Richard





More information about the Standards mailing list