[jdev] Re: Re: Reliable presence

[Nolan Eakins]

Peter Millard wrote:
> If we do this, it still requires routers to cache all of the presence
> packets that pass thru it, and "do the right thing" if they don't get
> another packet. It's these types of complications that make a protocol
> a lot more resource intensive and time consuming to implement.
...
> Perhaps the time we're spending on this discussion could go to
> improving the jabberd 1.4.3 s2s process and we'd all be much happier
> :)
> 
> pgm.

So the presence cache would be the way to go then?

And what would the best way be to detect a broken connection, especially
with TCP's 20 minute wait? Would periodic updates to the cache need to be
done too since s2s isn't always connected? Should they be scheduled w/ the
<x/> stanza I suggested? This could be hidden from the clients by letting
the servers add/remove it.

Are there any questions that I missed or suggestions that should be heard so
the Right implementation gets written?

Regards,
Nolan
-- 
http://www.semanticgap.com/people/sneakin/