[Standards] Resurrecting Reactions

Andrew Nenakhov 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
enough already)
 - 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.

Andrew Nenakhov
CEO, redsolution, OÜ
https://redsolution.com <http://www.redsolution.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20191210/b7fc5a2e/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list