On Sep 3, 2008, at 10:03 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 13:24:00 Pedro Melo wrote:
On Sep 3, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
This is more of a server limit though. The client still needs a
way to
negotiate its own limit, and have the server protect the client
from stanzas
larger than that limit.
ehe, Firewall XEP :).
What if your own server breaks that limit, for example, sending you
the roster? Peter would be in trouble... :)
A hackish approach would be to make the roster iq-result exempt
from limits.
Long term, it's probably more appropriate to make the roster get
sent as
multiple stanzas if we wish to live by our "stanzas should be
small" motto.
Yeah, the work on incremental rosters.
Servers already have Max stanza size on C2S and S2S. Do we really
need more protection than that?
If you set a small value for the server policy then you'd be fine,
but that's
not very flexible. For example, most desktop clients are surely
capable of
handling a 1MB stanza, but for some reason you cap your server at a
much
smaller 64KB. And even 64KB is probably too much for a mobile. So
a flat
maximum is not ideal.
Sure but as a server admin I would not admit a client negotiating a
larger stanza than my own C2S or S2S limits.
So if the limits for the desktop client will likely be larger than
those of [CS]2S, then there really is no need for this.
I agree that mobile clients will want to cap the stanza limit, but
this might be better end-to-end... Announce something via disco + IQ
protocol.
The server itself can use the same process to figure it out what the
limit is and enforce it if likes.
Each time we had a error back to the sender, we increase
complexity on all
the clients. And some stanzas are really hard to break in two...
Sure, but you already have this problem with server-imposed
limits. The fact
is, we have these limits, because we believe stanzas should be of some
reasonable size. All of our XEPs that may return large data must
have a way
of being split. That's just a fact of life.
That's true. The limits are already there.
/me ponders.
I think a <feature> in disco#info plus a IQ-based protocol would be
enough. Other entities (your own server, and other clients) can use
the same protocol to obtain the limits you are willing to accept.
Best regards,
--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use XMPP!
