[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Metacontacts

Mridul 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
client/exodus/psi/etc.
The data which is going to be reusable is already standardized (or could
be) like bookmarks, etc.

Regards,
Mridul

> 
> 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