[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0237 (Roster Versioning)
leon at darkk.net.ru
Wed May 13 18:42:26 UTC 2009
Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
> You didn't understand me. I'm just talking about examples being the
> worst/most difficult to implement way imaginable. If developers really
> do implement XEPs the example way, I'm frightened by the way servers
> would implement this.
Excuse me, I really misunderstood you. My point is that development "by
example" is evil. Examples never show general rule, that's ultimate
limitation of any example. Developers should know that.
Well, it's possible to add one more example with usual full-roster
response and ver="HASH-OF-ROSTER", and replace `ver's in iterm-pushes
with some pseudo-random strictly increasing sequence - that way will
illustrate implementation guidelines a bit better.
Anyway, I really doubt that content of `ver' attribute in examples
matters that much. IMHO, any content is good enough.
WBRBW, Leonid Evdokimov
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Standards