[Standards-JIG] Historical XEPs
jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Tue Nov 21 09:01:41 UTC 2006
I am going to rephrase my argument in the light of what Hal wrote. XEP-0049
and PEP serve two different purposes.
- PEP is a push mechanism,
- XEP-0049 is a pull mechanism.
To supersede XEP-0049 by PEP is the wrong approach as it would *mandate*
that every use case for private storage is a form of PubSub. This is not
true. A part of the use cases for private storage will definitively gain
from being implemented as PEP, but that does not mean we have to deprecate
XEP-0049. That definitively applies to configurations, preferences and
persistence of data between IM sessions which are common in today's IM
But IM is *not* the only application of XMPP, and other applications may use
a pure "on demand" pull of information.
The two methods must remain available for the developer to be used in
providing the appropriate solution to any given problem.
+1 to PEP handling the PubSub form of private storage use cases.
+1 to keep XEP-0049 for other use cases not falling into the PubSub
Agreed Hal, many Web applications would benefit from being rewritten with
PubSub/PEP handling some of their processes. And XMPP definitively fit
nicely the bill here. But they would still need HTTP to serve pages...
As I said above, it is more a matter of PEP and XEP-0049 than PEP or
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:12:09 -0500
From: "Hal Rottenberg" <halr9000 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] Historical XEPs
To: "XMPP Extension Discussion List" <standards-jig at jabber.org>
<b13a36870611201312g1431aaaeja0c621f588ffbb03 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 11/17/06, Ian Paterson <ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk> wrote:
> I like building block protocols like PEP. It often takes years until new
> protocols are implemented across most servers. (Commercial server
> developers often have to wait until their marketing departments identify
> significant customer demand). Building block protocols allow new
> protocols to be developed without requiring server developers to
> implement anything at all. XEP-0189 is a good example.
> IMO as long as XMPP allows multiple resources to connect at the same
> time, then some form of pubsub is the right place for (all?)
> personal/private data storage.
Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party on this one. As I read this
thread, the comments that began buzzing around in my head basically
run along the same lines as those that Maciek and Ian mention. I
think it is key that we provide these building blocks. I can look at
50 different "legacy Web 2.0" (haha) sites and easily imagine how they
could be rewritten with PEP and empty-whitelists in mind. It would be
nice to enable this sort of thing once on the server and then be able
to leverage n-times the same logic on whatever server "back end" you
+1 to ensuring PEP can handle the private storage case, and slowly
Psi webmaster (http://psi-im.org)
im:hal at jabber.rocks.cc
More information about the Standards