[Standards] MAM IDs

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Mon Feb 17 11:02:08 UTC 2014

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Thijs Alkemade <thijs at xnyhps.nl> wrote:
> On 17 feb. 2014, at 11:26, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk> wrote:
>> In MAM, stanzas stored get stamped with a MAM ID by the entity that
>> stored them, and entities receiving them then receive this.
>> So a general question - are these useful? Are clients going to ignore
>> them and just request all history since they last requested it anyway?
>> /K
> Because querying by date range is unreliable, and should be avoided wherever
> possible. The client's and the server's clock could be minutes apart and even
> if they were synchronized then multiple messages arriving in the same second
> can lead to difficult edge cases.

Yes, I'm not suggesting that querying by timestamp is a generally
sensible thing.

> I'd much rather query by the UUID injected into a message than by the
> approximate datestamp.

What are you querying for, and how are you using the injected ID? I
previously thought the ID injected into the stream would be useful,
but having now thought of how smart a client has to be to make use of
it (needs to query MAM on login, enable carbons, use 198-acks in some
slightly convoluted way to tie up outgoing messages with the incoming
ones to sort out ordering as the server archive saw it...), I'm less
convinced. I could become convinced again.


More information about the Standards mailing list