[Standards-JIG] Re: CALL FOR FEEDBACK: JEP-0060

Jean-Louis Seguineau jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Wed May 24 15:49:28 UTC 2006

Why duck Heiner? You are just stating a fact. There is nothing wrong with
that. And doing so does not decrease the quality of the work and effort put
into writing this JEP, on the contrary.

I support your suggestion for a different presentation of this great
milestone. We have everything to gain in making it easier to apply. And it
is simple to make it easier by splitting the JEP in more "digestible"
chunks. This is just a way to make it "better".



-----Original Message-----
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:16:43 +0200
From: Heiner Wolf <wolf at bluehands.de>
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] Re: CALL FOR FEEDBACK: JEP-0060
To: Jabber protocol discussion list <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Message-ID: <4474247B.1070504 at bluehands.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> One week gone and no feedback so far. You have 17 more days. :-)

OK, here is a serious one:
I know I am about to get in hot water, but I think the JEP is too fat. 
It printed 100 pages with small fonts.

I understand, that most of the complexity will be implemented by 
servers, but I doubt, that the client part is simple (remember: jabber 
clients should be simple?).

I am also a fan of simple specs for the server part. Servers usually 
tend to have lots of code, but this is because they have to cope with 
the real world and evil clients. Not, because they implement complex 

This is not the time to go into details. I am saying that a pubsub 
specification on top of an XML based protocol could be simpler, smaller, 
easier. It should be.

I know JEP-0060 went a long way and there are already big investments in 
documentation, code and know how. Despite all this, I propose to make a 
new document and extract only the essentials.

It might be possible to separate the document into a pubsub core and 
extensions. The core should have a simple pub/sub mechanism. Collection 
Nodes, should be a separate JEP. I am sorry for the blog/news-oriented 
people, but I'd scrap items for pubsub-core and store data in nodes 
only. Items could be an extension with the node returning the 
first/default item. Maybe implementation notes could be split off. They 
are important, but they make the spec heavy and people judge specs by 
the page count. Remember SIP and SIMPLE? And yes, I know that 1/2 of the 
spec is XML, examples and schema. I think it is still too much for a 
pubsub-core document.

I don't think, that it is a good way to finish now "what we already 
have" and then add simplifications as separate JEPs. It would be better 
to restart simple and then draw the code for extensions from JEP-0060.

(Now I duck and wait for the flames)

Dr. Heiner Wolf
bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
+49 (0721) 16108 75

More information about the Standards mailing list