[Standards] RFC 3921bis Managing Presence Subscriptions based on full JIDs serious issue
jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Thu Feb 7 14:48:45 UTC 2008
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 15:03 +0100, Tomasz Sterna wrote:
> Dnia 2008-02-07, Cz o godzinie 14:45 +0100, Ralph Meijer pisze:
> > If your particular use case desires that you can subscribe to the
> > presence of two different things (and not two facets of the same
> > thing),
> > why not make two different bare JIDs for them? Why not have
> > echo at chrome.pl, or webstatus at chrome.pl?
> This is a valid argument and I see your point.
> And in a post 1202050969.9019.33.camel at wing I expressed a reasoning
> with the similar conclusion. I agree that presence should be based on
> bare JIDs.
> I still see a very good use case for having full JIDs on the roster:
> to communicate with different facets of the same thing.
> Ex. chrome.pl/echo and chrome.pl/broadcast
> or +48123456789 at sms.chrome.pl/Gateway1
> and +48123456789 at sms.chrome.pl/Gateway2
You can communicate just fine with different resources directly, even if
just the bare JID is on your roster or not on it at all. If you receive
presence, you'll know about their availability, too.
More information about the Standards