[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes

JD Conley jd.conley at coversant.net
Wed Mar 14 17:51:31 UTC 2007


+1

It's a great protocol. It's not all that complicated. It gets the job
done. The only weird thing we've seen is that sometimes, if you have a
large roster with a very heterogeneous set of software/version, it can
take a while before you know the capabilities of all your contacts. In
our implementations I've seen an offline message come in well before
CAPS so some features are disabled at first for the conversation. Of
course, this is until things are cached.

-JD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org]
On
> Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:16 AM
> To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes
> 
> Rachel Blackman wrote:
> 
> > In the end, caps is one of our protocols that is actually both a)
> > sufficient for the task, and b) reasonably well-adopted.  Given
that,
> I
> > think time and effort is better spent on other things (like sorting
> out
> > that we now presently have two completely incompatible file transfer
> > protocols!), rather than taking a wheel which works and spending
that
> > time reinventing it just because you don't like the tread pattern.
:)
> 
> +1
> 
> /psa
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list