Hi,
On Feb 7, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Tomasz Sterna wrote:
Dnia 2008-02-07, Cz o godzinie 15:48 +0100, Ralph Meijer pisze:
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.
Sure.
But why do you enforce me to choose the resource every time
(instead of
just double clicking the contact) when I know that I will always be
wanting to communicate only with the given one?
hmms... You are asking a client to decide something semantic based on
the resource value.
I think that in the long run, you'll be better off using capabilities
or feature negotiation.
It really depends why would you want to choose Gateway1 over
Gateway2. If it is because you want to use some specific feature that
1 provides that 2 does not, then it's clearly a matter for
capabilities and not resource names.
But without the reasoning of your decision to choose 1 over 2, I can
only speculate.
Best regards,
--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use XMPP!
