[Standards] XEP-0313: pending 0.7 update review

Michal Piotrowski michal.piotrowski at erlang-solutions.com
Mon May 11 08:22:10 UTC 2020


Hi Matthew,

Thanks for making the changes. I'm really in favour of them. I see there
was no update to the PRs nor here on the mailing list. What needs to happen
in order to proceed with these?

Alos, I have a comment (or rather question) regarding the new way of
querying the archive based on message UIDs. I assume that by UID, you mean
the origin-id as set by the client sending the message. If so, it didn't
find it clearly stated in your proposed changes nor in the current
version of MAM XEP. If not origin-id is meant here, I'd like to know what
UID means in this context.

Best regards
Michal Piotrowski
Software Architect at https://www.erlang-solutions.com/
email: michal.piotrowski at erlang-solutions.com
skype: twitter/github/medium: michalwski



On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 13:17, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:

> On 4/22/20 12:07 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 15:50, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu
> > <mailto:flo at geekplace.eu>> wrote:
> >     On 4/21/20 2:32 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:> On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at
> 16:20,
> >     > You're going to hate me, but one more thing...
> >     >
> >     > Current MAM says that servers SHOULD include a count. The problem
> with
> >     > this is that it's extremely slow on any system with more than
> trivial
> >     > retention periods, since this tends to degenerate into either a
> >     COUNT(*)
> >     > SQL query (table-scan-tastic) or a standalone counter (which then
> >     drifts
> >     > and is a contention point).
> >     >
> >     > The majority of client libraries appear to ignore the count values
> >     > anyway, as far as I can tell, so can we relax this to a MAY?
> (XEP-0059
> >     > is MAY-but-only-if, which is arguably really a SHOULD anyway).
> >
> >     I think such a relaxation would require a namespace bump.
> >
> > I'm not convinced. In any case, servers that already comply with the
> > SHOULD will probably continue to do so, new servers may be more likely
> > not to, but given that clients don't really use the (unreliable) info
> > today then I don't think we lose anything in practice.
>
> I could follow that argumentation in this case. It's probably just me,
> but I am very conservative when it comes to relaxations of keywords.
>
> - Florian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
>

-- 


Code Sync & Erlang Solutions Conferences 
<https://www2.codesync.global/l/23452/2019-11-13/6sypwx>

*
*

Code BEAM 
Lite ITA - Bologna: Rescheduled

Code BEAM STO - Stockholm: Rescheduled


ElixirConf EU - Warsaw: 7-8 October 2020

Code Mesh - London: 5-6 November 
2020

*
*

Erlang Solutions cares about your data and privacy; please find 
all details about the basis for communicating with you and the way we 
process your data in our Privacy Policy 
<https://www.erlang-solutions.com/privacy-policy.html>. You can update your 
email preferences or opt-out from receiving Marketing emails here 
<https://www2.erlang-solutions.com/email-preference?epc_hash=JtO6C7Q2rJwCdZxBx3Ad8jI2D4TJum7XcUWcgfjZ8YY>.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20200511/18761b83/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list