On Oct 7, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I think overloading identity at the deployment level is a bad
idea, fwiw.
I like to have a name for each connection, and I don't think using
the
resource is the sane way to do it.
Perhaps, for my benefit (and possibly others who have trouble
following these epic threads too), you could in quick bullet points
summarise the arguments against static resource names. I know that the
first is to avoid presence leaks - I'd debate that later, but for now
I'd just like to understand the arguments against resources, as they
do fit the bill for what we'd like them to do perfectly.
Ok, but I want to re-read parts of this thread.
Identity name was a good candidate IMHO,
until Pavel mentioned the 115 cache-hit rate problem.
Glad we've discounted that, then :)
Moving the name to a different spec is ok by me. Maybe even 198.
If that's what ultimately needs to be done, I think a new spec could
be done - I don't think it belongs in 198 really.
The name of XEP-0198 is "Stream Management" and this is an operation
to give a name to a stream...
Best regards,
--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use XMPP!
