[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Metacontacts
Mridul.Muralidharan at Sun.COM
Thu Mar 29 15:35:14 UTC 2007
Ian Paterson wrote:
> 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.
Yes, this is indeed a problem - especially for the well known namespaces
like bookmarks, etc which clients sometimes expect to be in sync.
We have faced this issue in the past too w.r.t conference bookmarks.
> 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!
Use different namespaces with a namespace hierarchy ?
I am not sure why we need to put disjoint data within same namespace.
> PEP also gives us a registry of well known nodes.
private data is going to be specific to a application in most cases.
So I am not sure why we would need this ...
Typically pref's for gaim would not be useful for sun im
The data which is going to be reusable is already standardized (or could
be) like bookmarks, etc.
> 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