[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0237 (Roster Versioning)
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.
> only upside is that in the all or nothing use-case (5.2) you don't
> to save any version, because you can compute it. But a) it is still
> or less recommended to save the hash for performance gain b) saving an
> additional stricty increasing integer would work as well and be
> than a hash.
> 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
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.
More information about the Standards