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

Leonid Evdokimov leon at darkk.net.ru
Fri May 15 04:09:58 UTC 2009


I have a bit more misunderstanding, uncertainty and doubt:

See example 4:

C:<iq from='romeo at montague.lit/home' to='romeo at montague.lit' type='get'>
    <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster' ver='ver14'/>
  </iq>
...
S:<iq from='romeo at montague.lit' to='romeo at montague.lit/home' type='set'>
    <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster' ver='ver42'>...</query>
  </iq>
  </stream:stream>

[ reconnection ]

C:<iq from='romeo at montague.lit/home' to='romeo at montague.lit' type='get'>
    <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster' ver='ver34'/>
  </iq>                             <!-- ^^^^^ -->

As far as I see, the client should send "ver42", not "ver34". Server
replies confirm this assumption.


See section 5.4 Sending Pushes:

For instance, if a series of roster modifications result in a roster
item that does not differ from the version cached by the client (e.g., a
modification to the item's 'name' attribute and then a modification back
to the original value), then a server that implements the "complete
roster hashes" approach would consider the item to have __NOT__ been
modified for purposes of roster versioning and therefore would __NOT__
push the item to the client in an interim roster push; however, a server
that implements the "strictly increasing sequence numbers" approach
would send a roster push in this situtation.

Seems, the text with "__NOT__"`s makes more sense than without them. Am
I completely wrong?

-- 
WBRBW, Leonid Evdokimov


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20090515/16a497e5/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list