On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 9:41 AM Goffi <[email protected]> wrote: > That's exactly that; having all in one pubsub item means having the whole > roster each time there is an update. Legacy bookmark was doing that, and > experience showed that it caused troubles.
I’m expecting significantly fewer writes to the roster than on bookmarks because we are not - for example - flipping autjoin flags. To me the encryption here is the overhead. Especially OpenPGP has a certain overhead per item. On initial connect I would much rather decrypt one item and have the entire roster instead of n items. And having one item also adds a bit of obscurity since the server doesn’t see exactly how many users are in my roster, If i’m deleting or adding a roster item and so forth. > Regarding groups, the issue I have with current roster group management is > that we can't simply rename a group: as it's not handled with IDs, we have to > modify all places where the group is handled. This might be obvious but the group renaming is also not an issue when the entire roster is in one item because you write the entire thing anyway. > Anyway, I'm seeing this protoXEP as a starting point; I expect it to evolve > with feedback and experimentation. I would rather avoid 2 similar XEPs if we > can, but won't block it if people think it's a good way to find the best > solution. I’m usually not blocking XEPs. This XEP can have a number. I just want to make sure that if I ever publish my alternative approach I also get a number. I mean yes experiments are fine; but I personally would like to start my experiments with the one item approach. cheers Daniel _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
