[Standards] roster schema

Joe Hildebrand hildjj at gmail.com
Wed Jul 4 14:22:55 UTC 2007

On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:59 AM, Remko Tronçon wrote:

> I agree with Michal on this one. IMO, ad-hoc limits like these have no
> place in a protocol standard (especially not in a flexible one like
> XMPP), because there is nothing 'logic' about them. You are limiting
> the use of your protocol for no real reason (except that today, most
> clients don't need/want more). 1024 might seem a good number now, but
> you'll have to change the number in the RFC over time.
> Limits like these should be set on the server side, and the server
> should refuse to create groups larger than 1024 or something like
> that.

The server needs these limits in order to figure out how to size  
database tables, so there exists a reason.  Given that constraint,  
there are two paths to go down:

1) specify a maximum length
2) specify a way for the client to find out the maximum length
either way, you need to specify what happens if the length is  
exceeded (error, truncation, etc.)

The first way is much simpler.

Joe Hildebrand

More information about the Standards mailing list