[Standards] IQ Pubsub again (was Re: Fwd: Meeting minutes 2010-02-15)

Tuomas Koski koski.tuomas at gmail.com
Thu Feb 18 23:10:20 UTC 2010


Dear dudes,

On 18 February 2010 17:36, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Fabio Forno <fabio.forno at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I fear there is some misconception
>> about the use cases where <iq/>s are needed (basically: it's not about
>> reliability, but about having an immediate ack of delivery and XEP 198
>> does not solve this).
>
> I thought this was about reliability - could you remind me what it's
> really about, please?
> (I've forgotten the use cases)

I have to admit that I have forgotten these use cases too. How ever
here are my reasons why I'm sending events in IQs:
 * to be 100% sure that the events don't go to offline storage
 * To have "acks" without implement XEP-0184 Message Receipts or similar
 * I'm connected with a JID with multiple resources (/a and /b for
example). I want to send events only to resource /a. When the
resource /a for some reason disappears some servers starts to route
message stanzas sent to resource /a to resource /b.


Cheers,
--
tuomas



More information about the Standards mailing list