[Standards] roster views

Mickael Remond mickael.remond at process-one.net
Sat Feb 28 17:55:29 UTC 2009


Hello Fabio,

Fabio Forno wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Jonathan Schleifer
> <js-xmpp-standards at webkeks.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree that we need an alternative for privacy lists - but this is
>> definitely not partial roster retrival‼
>
> And what about partial activation? With partial activation you still
> manager the roster as usual, and in a separate iq you set on/off
> toggles for each group, at any time of the session.

Yes. I think we are on the same page.

Partial roster retrieval is only a consequence of what I have in mind.
It is much more partial (or event better incremental) loading of the
roster. The idea is to consider that for the session you only load a
part of the roster (all the data being kept on DB or disk).

One has to think about the fact that you actually have two copies of
the roster live at the same time. One live in the client and the other
on the server (to know what to do with presence packets).
With Jonathan approach, the roster on the server is not consistent with
what is on the client. This can lead to strange behaviour.

Moreover, our approach is good for:
- Mobile client: You download only a part of the roster (as a side
effect of incremental loading) and you only receive the presence you
want.
- Server: You only load into memory the part of the roster the user
need. No need to load 2000 contacts in memory if the user expect to need
only 10. The bigger your server, the larger the impact.

Yes, it cannot deal directly with your specific use case, because
partial roster retrieval is not the desired behaviour, only a
consequence.

Your specific use case as to be dealt another way.

-- 
Mickaël Rémond
 http://www.process-one.net/



More information about the Standards mailing list