[Standards] private storage revisited
ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Fri Jul 6 10:50:33 UTC 2007
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Whenever a client publishes the first item to a node that ends in
> "+[accessmodel]", the pubsub service MUST create the node with a default
> access model equal to the specified model (that is "open" or "presence"
> or "roster" or "authorize" or "whitelist").  For such a node, the
> access model MUST remain fixed and a pubsub service MUST return an error
> if the node owner tries to change it.
>  In fact "roster" doesn't make sense here since you need to specify
> the roster group. And BTW the list for "whitelist" must start out empty,
> i.e., only the node owner can publish or subscribe.
I think I agree with everything above except the proposed syntax. *If*
we agree on the functionality, then IMHO it *should* be trivial to come
up with a more appropriate syntax.
I strongly disagree with overloading the node attribute with the access
model. IMHO, mixing an identifier and a configuration parameter into the
same attribute would be a horrible (and unnecessary) hack.
I could live with this syntax:
However, IMHO, the following example stanza would "fit" better with the
rest of the protocol. That would make it easier for developers, since
they could simply reuse their existing <configure/> element processing code:
<iq from='juliet at capulet.com/balcony' type='set' id='create-presence'>
<text xml:lang='en'>My nurse's birthday!</text>
<x xmlns='jabber:x:data' type='submit'>
<field var='FORM_TYPE' type='hidden'>
I stress that the functionality associated with the above example would
be absolutely identical to that which Peter described above.
P.S. I put Ralph on copy because, although he has been very busy
recently, we're not going to move forward on this without his input and
eventual acceptance (he's both a principle author of the PubSub protocol
and a council member).
More information about the Standards