[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Metacontacts

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Thu Mar 29 11:40:17 UTC 2007


Remko Tronçon wrote:
>> Why using PEP here will help ? Isn't PEP used to publish some
>> information to other comtoncts ? In this case we'll never publish our
>> metacontact list to others ...
>
> There is a general feeling in the community that PEP should be used
> for storing private data (such as options and meta-contacts) as well,
> because we can, and because it only requires a PEP implementation (and
> no longer a separate implementation for iq:private).

PEP fixes iq:private's synchronization issues between multiple active 
resources of the same user.

PEP also allows multiple items to be published to the same node 
(namespace) and then updated individually. Whereas, with iq:private, 
updating a small part of the data associated with a namespace requires 
*all* the data to be read, edited and then completely rewritten!

PEP also gives us a registry of well known nodes.

If we were to design a simple data storage mechanism to replace 
iq:private, then the three features above would be top of my 
requirements list.

In a previous PEP vs iq:private discussion on this list, people (like 
Remko and Jean-Louis) said that the protocol would also have to keep the 
simplicity of iq:private (see November's "Historical XEPs" subject, 
unfortunately the Archive by Subject/Thread lists do not position all 
the posts with that subject together, and more than one topic was 
discussed under the thread). I agree.

I don't think standardizing on a new simple dedicated storage mechanism 
would offer us much more than PEP already does (here I am talking about 
PEP with publish+configure). We'd also have to wait an extra year for 
the standard to be written, to reach Draft and then be implemented by 
the servers.

- Ian




More information about the Standards mailing list