[Standards] publish+configure again

Ralph Meijer jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Fri Mar 30 07:44:16 UTC 2007


On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 00:15 +0100, Ian Paterson wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > IMHO we have rough consensus to accept the publish+configure in PEP
> > (XEP-0163) as a logical extension of the existing auto-create feature.
> > We need to define these features more carefully, including pubsub
> > service discovery <feature/> vars and error handling. We need to
> > clearly specify the costs, benefits, and hazards of publish+configure.
> 
> Yes, and Ralph would probably be the best qulaified person to write a
> section about the disadvantages of excessive use of publish+configure. :-)

Heh.

I had a nice conversation with Ian the other day on my views on PEP in
general. First off, I don't want to come across as the guy that is
holding everything up. I want to use this message to explain some of my
reasoning.

I very much like PEP and can't wait for it to be widely deployed. As I
am also one of the XEP-0060 authors, I view everything in the PEP
discussion in light of what that means for XEP-0060. Maybe that helps
explain some of my hesitations for additional changes.

I had some reservations about the use of Entity Capabilities previously,
but that changed. When sending some caps, you will be automatically
subscribed to a node, for the duration of your IM session. It doesn't
add any protocol. Cool.

Same for automatic node creation. It seems to be a valid wish to do
this, provided you have a good default configuration. Like the caps
thing, it doesn't add protocol. Nice!

Basically the only thing that has been bugging me is sending along a
node configuration with a publish request. This does add protocol, and
makes us need to change XEP-0060, think about error handling, and add
some more logic to servers. Like Peter says, adding more logic to
servers is almost never a real show stopper, so I won't go into that.
I'm also sure we can get around the error handling.

The reason I always look to XEP-0060, too, is that I envision that
people want more than what PEP provides now, in the future. In some
other thread there was mention of more access control on what you
publish. Things like being able to configure your subscription will be
interesting, too (only send me notifications when my presence is
'online' or 'chat').

So, I think for Personal Eventing, server implementations will start off
with PEP as it is now, and gradually add features from XEP-0060. We have
a lot of discoverable features, so clients can detect what's there.

At this point I have some additional questions.

* If we decide to add p+c, will it be required to implement?
* Will the regular node creation flow and configuration still be in PEP?
* Client authors: would you implement that flow, too?

Just like Magnus is saying, I think for most non-private-storage use
cases for PEP, you would almost never need/want to change the
configuration of a node after it has been created.

* Client authors: would you send configuration forms every publish
  request?

Actually I think this holds for the private storage case as well, but it
seems some client authors are afraid that other clients will cause
havoc.

* Could someone explain this bit for me?
* If you don't trust the other client, how can you be sure it doesn't
  mess up other things like the roster, your password or misuse the
  nifty remote control support you might have added?

I hope to find some time to finish up my own implementation of things
here and have the code speak for itself. But, when the specs have been
updated and there is indeed rough consensus, I will not veto it. It
would be nice to hear the opinions of people that have not yet entered
the discussion yet, though.

-- 
Groetjes,

ralphm




More information about the Standards mailing list