Further thoughts... Dave Cridland wrote:
> The IQ responses can be gotten rid of by sending these - and all - > roster pushes as message stanzas instead. So, if your client uses > XEP-0237, you're implicitly telling the server to send you roster pushes > as <message/> stanzas. Now clients can legally not respond to roster > push iq's, because they're not iq's anymore. Hoorah! > > We can get rid of per-push stanza wrapping overhead by allowing multiple > items per push, too. > > Now what we have is that when you ask for your roster, you get a single > <message/> based push containing all items, or else you get your iq > result with the replacement roster. Hardly any overhead at all, now. > > Given that we're now handling multiple pushes, it seems fair to go a > step further, and allow clients to have multiple items in a roster set. One potential problem: this is not a nice, small, incremental change. Now servers and clients must support: 1. The 'sequence' attribute. 2. Roster pushes via message, not IQ. 3. Multiple items in a roster push. 4. Multiple items in a roster set. The more we change, the less likely it is that clients and servers will add this feature. Then we're back where we started. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." So what's broken? 1. Huge roster gets every time you log in. The 'sequence' stuff fixes this. What's not broken? 2. Roster pushes via IQ. 3. One item per roster push. 4. One item per roster set. Why are we fixing 2, 3, and 4? Just because we can? Because it is more elegant? Or because it really solves a big problem on the network? Unless there is a compelling need, I'd vote for changing as little as possible. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
