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

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Wed May 24 16:06:12 UTC 2006

Hey all,

I agree that JEP-0060 is large. :) However, it's not overly complex and
the detail is necessary to remove ambiguity (1.8 is also much better
than 1.7). I would suggest that instead of trying to help client authors
at the JEP level that time would be better spent creating a more
client-friendly tutorial. It could include lots of examples and gloss
over many of the details that are necessary in the JEP. Those of us that
work on client API libraries also need to take on the burden of making
pubsub easy to understand and use for client authors.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org 
> [mailto:standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf Of 
> Jean-Louis Seguineau
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:49 AM
> To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] Re: CALL FOR FEEDBACK: JEP-0060
> 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".
> +1
> Jean-Louis
> -----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 services.
> 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)
> hw
> --
> Dr. Heiner Wolf
> bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
> http://www.bluehands.de/people/hw
> +49 (0721) 16108 75

More information about the Standards mailing list