[JDEV] 99b

[Thomas D. Charron]

  Sorry, but from an architecture standpoint, this would be a very POOR example.  You are now relying on an independent client's lists, which mean you are now relying on that particular user.  This type of listing should be done by a client, with no interaction with other clients.  A transport would be better for the equivilent of this.  You're more talking about a client that acts as a transport, which is possible using the CURRENT protocol..  This is NOT a good example of peer to peer.

  I also mentioned the metaserver idea becouse it one would need to be able to find these lists easily, without needing to cross your fingers and go for a web search..

  You would also not be able to address easily in this case..  How would you address to a mailing list I own?  SomeList at TwOlf.jabber.org will NOT work, as I would need a DNS entry for TwOlf.jabber.org..  ;-P

---
Thomas Charron

On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:08:31    arh14 wrote:
>
>Ahh...a practical use for CTSP/CTCP transparency I was talking about :)
>
>If entities are all treated the same (same basic Jabber protocol), it 
>would be very simple for people to set up their own meta-lists with 
>routing and forwarding, etc.
>
>Hmm...abstracting this, then each client could have a set of "lists", 
>which would each have a list of users.  Some lists would be "private" 
>(personal buddy list?, family list?), some could be "public", like a user 
>group, which was viewable and messagable by everybody.



--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.