Re: [Standards] Service Discovery + dependent features
On 16.03.2015 23:06, Christian Schudt wrote: Thanks Florian, generally I agree, but please read my answers below. I was mostly having a modular XMPP client library in mind. Here, if you advertise support for 'carbons', the library code for forward will be loaded. And in Smack's case, it's the full 'forward' code, not only the part required for 'carbons'. But of course, one could split the 'forward' module further, i.e. smack-extension-forward-whatIsRequiredForCarbons and smack-extension-forward-everythingElse, but I don't see a appealing reason to put some effort into that. And if you feel like not advertising 'forward' but 'carbons', then I see no problem with that either. I guess there are no implementations that actually specify and build a dependency graph for XMPP extensions. So nothing should break. Same is true for the jingle file-transfer case. If you feel like treating a missing 'ibb' announcement as 'jingle filetransfer is disabled', then there is nothing preventing you from doing so. :) But IMHO that's not a good idea. - Florian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Standards] Service Discovery + dependent features
Ok, makes sense as well. I conclude from this discussion, that there are no extension protocols which MUST be coupled with another one in service discovery (i.e. if A then B), although for some they SHOULD (e.g. if urn:xmpp:jingle:transports:ibb:1 then urn:xmpp:jingle:1). Thanks. -Christian Am 17.03.2015 um 17:19 schrieb Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net: On 16 March 2015 at 23:11, Lance Stout lancest...@gmail.com wrote: This one may need to go to Peter for a philosophy question: what is to be done when an implementation of feature Y MUST support X as a fallback, but the user chooses to disable X. MTI != MTD Mandatory To Implement does not mean Mandatory To Deploy - so if Y requires X as a fallback (or a server MUST implement SCRAM, or whatever) this doesn't imply that it must be deployed and activated at all times. Dave.
Re: [Standards] Service Discovery + dependent features
On 16 March 2015 at 23:11, Lance Stout lancest...@gmail.com wrote: This one may need to go to Peter for a philosophy question: what is to be done when an implementation of feature Y MUST support X as a fallback, but the user chooses to disable X. MTI != MTD Mandatory To Implement does not mean Mandatory To Deploy - so if Y requires X as a fallback (or a server MUST implement SCRAM, or whatever) this doesn't imply that it must be deployed and activated at all times. Dave.
