RE: [jdev] XMPP Ping/Keepalive: Recommended method ?

[JD Conley]

Yup. An empty presence has just as much impact/meaning (aside from network utilization and obviously some processing time) as one with status information or other payload data.   -JD   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:48 PM To: Jabber software development list Subject: Re: [jdev] XMPP Ping/Keepalive: Recommended method ?   Even with an empty presence payload like <presence /> ? p.s  Answering below quoted text  is similarly annoying for people with mobile email clients where only the first X bytes are retrieved by default ;-) ----- Original Message ---- From: Maciek Niedzielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jabber software development list <jdev@jabber.org> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 4:54:14 PM Subject: Re: [jdev] XMPP Ping/Keepalive: Recommended method ? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Assuming (for legacy reasons), the only injection point available in > the code for this uni-directional "keepalive" is a message or > presence packet, how "bad" is it to send a <presence /> to the server > (vs. say a jabber:iq:version or jabber:iq:time) ? - From user's point of view: I remember a friend writing a bot some time ago and sending presence every 10 minutes. The result was a popup in my client, every 10 minutes. - -- Maciek                       A: It's against natural order of reading. xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Q: Why is that? xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   A: People answering above quoted text.                           Q: What's the most annoying on newsgroups?