[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Thu Feb 13 20:12:41 UTC 2020


On 2/13/20 8:31 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 16:54, Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de
> <mailto:georg at op-co.de>> wrote:
>     Persistence: certain PEP implementations from the past, which are still
>     distributed by major OS platforms, chose to implement PEP in a
>     non-persistent way, only keeping data in RAM. I know we are deep in
>     implementation-defined behavior territory here, but a warning to
>     developers might be appropriate.
> 
> 
> No idea what to say here. Feels like "Clients are RECOMMENDED to use
> servers which are not totally shit".

I wonder if the right conclusion to draw here, may be that we need a
feature announcement if the PubSub/PEP service will persist nodes or not
(and how many items?).

In the past, some PubSub/PEP implementations where bootstraped without
persistence support, likely because it is easier to get a pure in-memory
implementation done first. And it is probably safe to assume this will
also happen with some new implementations in the future. Mind that some
PubSub/PEP use-cases are perfectly fine without item persistence.

Hence why not add such a feature [1] and have XEPs like xep402 require
clients to check for the existence of this feature?

- Florian

1: Probably to xep60?




More information about the Standards mailing list