On 12/16/2011 11:27 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Fri Dec 16 09:41:11 2011, Sergey Dobrov wrote: >> And will increase traffic for clients which don't support microblogging. >> The PEP protocol is again loss. The things that it was designed for are >> work well only for very simple protocols like moods. >> >> > Right, and I agree this isn't a perfect solution, but I don't think > filtering at the destination server is a solution either, I went through > this already. > > What about this - what if we had some mechanism for having your PEP > service subscribe to remote nodes, so that you in effect had a node > which aggregated remote nodes for you? Then the net result is one that > can be subscribed to using the normal filtering methods, and you're more > or less getting what you're asking for, but structured such that it fits > into the existing framework, and isn't forcing constraints onto the > entire system.
We have the same disadvantages here: 1. node ACLs can't be used (but it can for filtering on destination server) 2. all node items should be stored on this aggregation service (but it should not for filtering on destination server) The only advantage here is that we can do that transparently and we will not break compatibility. Any other problems will be here in more complex shape. > Dave. -- With best regards, Sergey Dobrov, XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
