jonas at wielicki.name
Sat Feb 17 16:13:28 UTC 2018
On Dienstag, 13. Februar 2018 21:42:56 CET Simon Friedberger wrote:
> >> ...
> > You are mixing multiple problems with multiple solutions, which was
> > probably in an effort to get the whole picture, but also leads to
> > confusion. I personally would like to concentrate on solving C4, where
> > you pointed out a promising candidate for a solution: E2
> Indeed. Mostly because I still don't think that I understand the
> complete picture.
> For example, if we are only trying to solve C4, is that really worth the
> Does it do anything more than save a round-trip?
Yes. The "round-trip" you’re speaking of may be excessively expensive.
Essentially, if a client wants to know the stanza-id of a message it sent, it
needs to do a MAM query starting with the last known stanza-id and do some
matching. There is no other way (because you don’t get carbons for messages
you sent yourself). No client is doing this afaik. Clients which do not do
this have to resort to some kind of heuristic when syncing MAM at a later
So we’re solving a "round trip or annoying heuristic" situation. This is worse
than it sounds, because it makes clients much more complex (or I am missing
something; that would be great.): If a client wants to refer to messages
internally by some unique ID, it would be natural to use the stanza-id,
because that ID can be used with MAM queries, too. However, that’s not
possible if you don’t know the stanza-id for outbound messages. So instead,
clients need to add a layer of indirection with yet-another client-internal ID
for the message (probably most of the time some type of auto-increment
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Standards