[Standards] Resource conflict handling

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Mon Jun 13 09:44:18 UTC 2011


On Mon Jun 13 10:08:58 2011, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>  
> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri Jun 10 18:48:01 2011, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >
> >> This won't work properly if the existing client is a paused BOSH  
> session,
> >> which may not unpause the session to reply for arbitrary lengths  
> of time.
> >>
> > So it times out. No problem. Still works properly, everything's  
> happy and
> > jolly.
> >
> 
> BOSH sessions may have pause sessions hours long.  Taking an hour  
> to time
> out isn't jolly, it's broken.
> 
> 
No, we don't wait for a response to time out. That's why it's called  
"timing out". :-)


> Even the more common case of pauses on the order of minutes would  
> be a
> clearly unacceptable delay.  I don't think designing around expected
> timeouts is a good approach.
> 
> 
No, it's a fixed timeout in the order of ten seconds. There is  
nothing a client can do (including explicitly pausing the session) to  
avoid this.


> It's not one client involved, but two, and any time the right  
> behaviour is
> > dependent on more than one entity doing things right, disaster  
> lurks in the
> > wings.
> >
> > If one client does it right, and another does it wrong, there's  
> some nasty
> > failure cases.
> 
> 
> How is a buggy client ever going to accidentally conflict with a  
> SHA-1 based
> resourcepart?  (Or even something much shorter--you don't need 160  
> bits to
> prevent that.)  The point is using resourceparts designed to  
> prevent these
> accidental conflicts.

Turn it around - how is your problem not solved by the solution  
already in existence?

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade



More information about the Standards mailing list