[Standards] Resurrecting Reactions
andrew.nenakhov at redsolution.com
Tue Dec 10 18:46:58 UTC 2019
Our stance on reactions, in a collection of theses:
- the most practical way to address reactions is something we refer to as
- fastening also looks like the best way to attach error messages to
- fastening is also a possible way to do working message threads,
slack-style )there are other ways to make threads, but still, it's a
- XMPP would greatly benefit from a unified approach to all these things
- archive question is not addressed at all, and storing all this crap in a
continuous stream is limiting archive usefulness (read markers are bad
- also we can run into situations when we get attachment to a message that
we don't yet have
- we need a separate way to get 'main' message sequence and 'attachments'
- an 'inbox' system should use versioning to allow catching up missed
attachments in a conversation, just as it has to allow catching up on edits
and msg retractions)
(I'll be using the word 'attachment' for 'fastented' stanzas)
We are likely to try building a modified archive where we will have 3 types
of requests to MAM:
- basic, no changes from current
- with aggregated counter, where message is returned with a number of
attachments it currently has. Possibly, aggregated on type (6 😂 3 😡 1 👍
1 💩), *without *authorship of those attachments
- verbose, with all messages and all their attachments, maybe nested.
At our current speed and workload we might have a working prototype (client
+ server) to play with maybe in march, unless someone comes up with a
better working solution.
CEO, redsolution, OÜ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards