2009/6/17 Remko Tronçon <re...@el-tramo.be>: > Well, there's not much worse than a reliable messaging protocol that isn't > 100% reliable. If there's the slightest possibility that this fails (e.g. > client going offline and coming online with the same resource, and for some > reason the presence doesn't get through), then it shouldn't be used as a way > to acknowledge receipt.
When you're at the stage of worrying about broken servers not distributing stanzas, you've already lost the reliability battle, I think. Message receipts serve a different purpose than transport reliability though, anyway. Message receipts means that the message has been 'processed' (presented to the user). Using Message Receipts for reliability, if you couple it with resending when the receipt doesn't come in within a short time, would result in floods of messages whenever a user goes AFK (or just is busy with something else). Message receipts are for user<->user reliability (discussions of whether that's reliability or not aside), not client<->client reliability. /K
