2009/5/12 Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 5/9/09 12:52 PM, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote: >> I have read the text again after a while and the following text got my >> attention: >> >>> If a series of roster modifications result in a roster item that does not >>> differ from the >>> version cached by the client (e.g., a modification to the item's 'name' >>> attribute and >>> then a modification back to the original value), the server SHOULD NOT >>> consider the >>> item to have been modified for purposes of roster versioning and therefore >>> SHOULD NOT >>> push the item to the client in an interim roster push. >> >> That part is not very useful, since servers will hardly keep track of >> every previous roster version. I don't even want to think about the >> CPU overhead that will kill the cluster every 30 minutes (that's a >> hyperbole of course). > The simplest "full featured" implementation >> consists of integer version numbers and "mver" field for every roster >> item. > > This is purely an implementation decision and I think we need to remove > the conformance language here (i.e., no MUST, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, MAY). > If the server chooses the "hash complete roster" approach then it won't > send the push. If the server chooses the "integer version numbers" > approach then it will send the push. End of story. > >> Server will then send all the items whose mver is greater than >> client's ver. Any throughout checking would hardly ever have any >> benefit. > > What is mver? >
The same relation as with time and mtime on files. It's the version of last change. >> ----- >> >> About the opaque vs. integer examples dilemma. I think if someone >> really doesn't read the text, his implementation won't work at all >> anyway. The examples are kinda confusing this way. If you really want >> some opaque strings there, use "AAAAA", "BBBBB", "CCCCC" or something >> like that, so the sequentiality is obvious. > > A sequence number is not really opaque, is it? The examples currently > use the "hash complete roster" approach. I would prefer to err on the > side of not misleading clients about sequentiality ("the examples have > AAAAA and BBBBB so I suppose the next 'ver' will be CCCCC" and then the > client breaks when that's not the case). > > Peter > Ok, so in order to not confuse stupid programmers with a specific implementation, we will confuse them with one entirely impossible. I get your thinking *THUMBS UP*