[Standards] Removing PEP nodes?

Ralph Meijer jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Fri Aug 17 15:57:13 UTC 2007


On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 09:30 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Ralph Meijer wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 09:05 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >> Ralph Meijer wrote:
> >>> [..]
> >>>
> >>> We used to have an explicit 'current' item identifier for the different
> >>> extended presence specs, but these seem to have been removed. I always
> >>> assumed extended presence to have a more transient notion than one which
> >>> may persist a history of changes (as each publish gets a unique id if
> >>> you don't provide one). Peter, could you comment on this?
> >> I don't think the "current" ItemID was ever meant to have special
> >> meaning, it was just what pgmillard put into the examples. We removed
> >> that so that people would no longer get confused.
> > 
> > I don't think pgm put them in for no reason. 
> 
> I can't remember. IIRC it was just a kind of "placeholder" ID.

Not sure. The point that I was trying to make is there is a semantic
difference between using just one id (current?) or having the service
pick one for you. We should maybe decide which of the two we intend as I
was assuming the former.

> > Assuming notifications with
> > payload and persistent nodes (even for one item), the semantics of
> > providing an item identifier or not are different.
> > 
> > If you don't provide an item identifier, the service MUST generate one
> > and, although this is not explicitly specified, a unique one at that.
> 
> The definition of ItemID is:
> 
> "A unique identifier for an item in the context of a specific node."
> 
> Shall we specify a preferred algorithm for ensuring uniqueness?

I know item identifiers must be unique, but I was saying here is that
the XEP doesn't specify that a server needs to generate unique ids if
the publisher doesn't provide one.

-- 
Groetjes,

ralphm




More information about the Standards mailing list