[JDEV] 99b

[arh14 at cornell.edu]

I was merely abstracting what ICQ "Active lists" apparently were, to a 
higher level.  I wasn't trying to say they were good.  As with any 
client-controlled thing, if the client goes down, then the list goes 
down.  However "Active lists" should, or shouldn't be done, I was only 
modelling what ICQ is doing as an extension of the "user list" concept, 
which, if clients were treated as server, would be identical to the 
Jabber "list" of users (but a small subset).

Sure, for people to access the list, the server the list resides on must 
be up all the time and addressable via DNS or something like that.  I'm 
not arguing that these user lists be stored on the client's machine, I'm 
just saying that personal lists, and group lists could be treated as 
similar entities.

Aaron

On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Thomas D. Charron wrote:

>   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