[Standards] Unread syncing

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Wed Dec 14 13:50:09 UTC 2016


On 14 Dec 2016, at 11:46, Michal Piotrowski <michal.piotrowski at erlang-solutions.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2 December 2016 at 18:18, forenjunkie <forenjunkie at chello.at <mailto:forenjunkie at chello.at>> wrote:
> Ah now im understanding, basically the server should give you a list of contacts to query for messages.
> 
> i would see this as a simply addition to MAM.
> 
> Would you see it as a new parameter to MAM query? or rather a completely new kind of iq to MAM service?

What I’m currently speccing up after a few side discussions with folks recently is actually something that replaces the initial bind and does all the bits that need doing for multi-client at once. I need to find a couple of hours to finish writing it up so we can get it in the inbox and start discussion.

> The Archive already could know what messages you read, because of chatmarkers. it would only need to hold the last read marker stanza id for every contact in roster, and perform some SQL magic on query.
> 
> I can think of a situation where there is no roster (on XMPP server) but still there is archive and we want to get list of contacts with unread messages.
> 
> 
> I like Kevin's idea with the iq and list of unread messages in a result.
> Also I think it would be beneficial for clients to have not only id of the unread message but also the content.
> This could be optional, of course, but in some cases getting the unread message content would make UI update easier.

I think the content of the messages is fairly straightforward to get from a MAM query immediately afterwards. I was originally thinking that you’d get sent the messages themselves, but I’m coming to the conclusion that it doesn’t buy much, and makes the protocol more complex. I guess we’ll see once I’ve finished speccing it whether this works or not.

> The client doesn't have to query the archive if it only wants to display part of the unread message content on the UI.

That’s true, but is it significantly harder for the client to send that query, if the server has already told it exactly the IDs it needs to query between?

/K
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20161214/cf117a8a/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list