[Standards] [XEP-0234] Jingle File Transfer, Last Call and File Sharing

Goffi goffi at goffi.org
Mon Feb 26 13:54:14 UTC 2018

Hi Tedd, 

thanks for your feedback

Le dimanche 25 février 2018, 21:19:16 CET Tedd Sterr a écrit :

> The requestor should ask for the full path to the file, not the bare
> filename, so as long as you don't have two files with the same name in
> the same directory, there shouldn't be a conflict. Treat the node name
> as an opaque identifier for the file, so a request for a bare filename
> simply won't match any of the shared files (except in the case where the
> file is shared without any containing directory, but this should still
> be the only file with that name.)

Well the XEP states that "/" SHOULD NOT be used in name (XEP-0234 §5 and 
§12), so I'm not sure that putting the path there is a good idea. If so it 
would simplify things, but wording should be changed.

> 'path/filename' should be a unique identifier, otherwise how do you know
> which they are requesting? Also, if you can give all files a unique ID,
> that unique ID could just as easily be the hash value itself.

I may use versioning in the future, so path/filename may not be unique, 
that's why I would like to use UUID.

> > 4) if there are several file conresponding to a file request (e.g. only
> > name is given), what should we do ? Return the first one or send a
> > "conflict" stanza error?
> As above; this shouldn't happen - you should not offer to share two files
> with the same path+filename.

My question is if we have only the filename or the hash (even if payload 
will be the same with single hash, metadata like name or date can differ)

> The XEP hints at the possibility of requesting a file by name only (sans
> path), but only when this will be unique; I suggest the request MUST
> include the path to avoid any confusion.

But there is no way to include the path at the moment.


More information about the Standards mailing list