On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 15:03 +0100, Tomasz Sterna wrote: > Dnia 2008-02-07, Cz o godzinie 14:45 +0100, Ralph Meijer pisze: > > If your particular use case desires that you can subscribe to the > > presence of two different things (and not two facets of the same > > thing), > > why not make two different bare JIDs for them? Why not have > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This is a valid argument and I see your point. > And in a post [EMAIL PROTECTED] I expressed a reasoning > with the similar conclusion. I agree that presence should be based on > bare JIDs. > > I still see a very good use case for having full JIDs on the roster: > to communicate with different facets of the same thing. > Ex. chrome.pl/echo and chrome.pl/broadcast > or [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gateway1 > and [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gateway2
You can communicate just fine with different resources directly, even if just the bare JID is on your roster or not on it at all. If you receive presence, you'll know about their availability, too. -- Groetjes, ralphm
