[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0237 (Roster Versioning)

Curtis King cking at mumbo.ca
Thu May 14 16:29:48 UTC 2009


On 13-May-09, at 4:40 PM, Florian Zeitz wrote:

> I'm also not really sure why anyone might ever want to use hashes.

+1

> The
> only upside is that in the all or nothing use-case (5.2) you don't  
> have
> to save any version, because you can compute it. But a) it is still  
> more
> or less recommended to save the hash for performance gain b) saving an
> additional stricty increasing integer would work as well and be  
> smaller
> than a hash.

yes.

> I unfortunately missed out on the discussion about making ver opaque,
> but the result doesn't seem plausible to me right now...
> I guess it is not a bad idea to define ver as opaque, but recommending
> hashes, or anything other than integers just doesn't seem  
> worthwhile...

well said..

In addition it makes the XEP more complex as you now have two possible  
implementation choices to understand. One is always simpler than  
two ;-) Having a single simple notification method is best for  
interoperability and it doesn't get simpler than a strictly increasing  
integer. If these long discussion about the fallout of adding hashes  
haven't proved it I don't what would.

I vote to remove hashes from the XEP and only specify integers.

ck




More information about the Standards mailing list