On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:39:11 +0100 Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 2008, at 1:48 AM, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > > > "Matthew Wild" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> If they type it manually then they know what they are doing, and > >> when they come to type the stanza for resource binding, they will > >> read the RFC and see that it recommends not specifying a > >> resource :) > > > > Which is IMO a painfully bad idea for users with instable > > connections. They will have thousands of resources online after a > > short while and you don't know which to msg. Very, very bad idea, > > IMO. Makes it totally > > unusable with an unstable conenction. You *WANT* a static resource > > then, so you can replace the old, dead connection. > > I would recommend those clients to use BOSH and its native session > resume capabilities. I would recommend not to break the TCP way only to use a bunch of layers. Too many layers (in protocol, session layers, etc) add (usually unnecessary) complexity. > The users will be a lot happier. > > On a perfect world you would be able to use the same session-resume > capabilities on TCP. Maybe someday you will. That would be much better. But still it doesn't solve the "disconnect without reconnect" case (xep-198 mostly does). Pavel > Best regards, -- Pavel Šimerda Freelancer v oblasti počítačových sítí, komunikace a bezpečnosti Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
