[Standards] MIX use of type=groupchat?

Steve Kille steve.kille at isode.com
Mon Jan 23 08:14:55 UTC 2017



> And what about you previous statement:
> 
> > There would be a definite elegance in "using PubSub" everywhere, and
> > an early MIX version was written this way
> 
> So you failed to build "elegant" solution and you don't think I'm right?
[Steve Kille] 

I think what we are doing with MIX is also elegant.

"definite elegance" was intended to convey both positive and negative
meaning


> 
> > PubSub and MIX are both key XMPP services and have distinct
> > characteristics.
> 
> Key? There is not even MIX yet. And pubsub usage is very limit at the
> moment.
> 
> > PubSub is a useful building block for MIX and can also be a useful
> > building block for other XMPP services, such as FDP (XEP-0346)
> 
> Yeah. If you build something which cannot be reused without ad-hoc
> elements (and thus ad-hoc code) you can always say "it's a building
block".
[Steve Kille] 

I think that a MIX goal is to use PubSub "as is".      I am sure there are
things that can be done to improve PubSub, but this is definitely out of
scope for the MIX work


Steve

 




More information about the Standards mailing list