[Standards] XEP-0080 interoperability
florian.zeitz at gmx.de
Tue Apr 13 10:38:45 UTC 2010
On 13.04.2010 01:49, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On
> Behalf Of Florian Zeitz
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 6:58 PM
> To: standards at xmpp.org
> Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0080 interoperability
> On 12.04.2010 23:45, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
>> Maybe my view on this diverges from everyone else's, but I don't think
>> PEP is/should be restricted to IM. It is a totally artificial
>> restriction you are putting on your self that makes things more
>> complicated. Why wouldn't (to keep the example) one microblogger be
>> connected to one JID and his microblog stored in a PEP node on that?
> I don't think PEP is restricted to IM I guess, but it does require a
> roster/presence to make it work. In fact, I have done this by creating a web
> service that uses a bot to receive PEP events (location, etc) from users
> subscribed to the bot. If you had 1000 entities who wanted to get updates to
> your microblog, you would need 1000 entities subscribed to you in your
> roster in order for PEP to work.
> I have even a better example: I want to post your current location to a web
> page by subscribing to your geoloc pubsub node. Currently I would have no
> way to programmatically find out where your node is I believe.
I'm by no means a PubSub or PEP expert, so maybe I'm wrong. But AFAICT
the XEP clearly states that a PEP service MUST support the "open" access
model as well as the subscribe use case. It also states "An entity shall
receive event notifications if [...] The node has an open access model
and the entity has explicitly or implicitly subscribed to the node as
explained in XEP-0060."
Wouldn't that suffice?
More information about the Standards