[Standards-JIG] Re: Historical XEPs

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Nov 16 22:18:40 UTC 2006

Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
> Remko Troncon wrote:
>>> How about the PEP-based XML storage?
>> I still think that's a horrible idea. Private XML storage has nothing to
>> do with eventing, and especially not with sending events to many users
>> (which is what PEP is really for, regardless of the fact that there are
>> ways to make nodes private etc.). What is the real motivation for doing
>> it this way (except that we can?)
> Old XML Storage fails when you want to store a list of items (like
> bookmarks): you cannot easily add/remove one item. And more fun starts
> when you have more then one connected resource. You don't know if other
> instance changed something (because there are no event notifications).
> Not to mention race conditions.
> Yes, XML Storage doesn't need PEP: it just needs well-know PubSub node.
> But if we already decided to have IM-PubSub for PEP, it doesn't make
> sense to write another spec for private nodes and expect server
> developers to implement it.

In fact it's already pretty much in PEP, since a PEP node with an access
model of "whitelist" and no entities on the whitelist effectively
results in a node that enables private data storage. However, nothing in
XEP-0163 (or elsewhere) really explains how that would work in detail.


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20061116/15beda18/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list