[jdev] Privacy feature

[Michal Vaner (Vorner)]

Dne neděle 05 únor 2006 10:59 Trejkaz napsal(a):
> On Sunday 05 February 2006 19:52, Michal Vaner (Vorner) wrote:
> > Dne neděle 05 únor 2006 08:49 Trejkaz napsal(a):
> > > Hi all.
> > >
> > > I've been looking at knocking together a simple privacy list management
> > > webapp, which might eventually be of use for all those poor people
> > > whose clients don't support it directly.
> > >
> > > One of the things I just noticed is that ejabberd doesn't list
> > > jabber:iq:privacy as a feature in service discovery, but jabberd2 does.
> > > I'm pretty sure ejabberd does support the feature since it claims 100%
> > > XMPP compliance now, but if it doesn't list the feature then what is
> > > the proper way to detect its existence?
> >
> > XMPP, If I read it properly, does not say it should be listed in the
> > features. Instead, it says that privacy lists are required, so client
> > sould not detect the server can do that, client should expect them to do
> > so. If not, the server is not XMPP compliant and you will get feature not
> > implemented error when you try do use them.
>
> So basically what you're saying is, the only way to find out is to try and
> then get an error, because:
>
>   1) a server might be 100% XMPP compliant, and simply allow the privacy
> list feature to be disabled, or;

Then the software might be compliant, but the server is not. Compliant server 
must support it and have it available. Therefore, what does not provide this 
is not compliant.

>   2) a server might not claim to be XMPP compliant at all, and still
> support the feature.

It may be missing something else, therefore it would not be compliant for 
other reason.

> IMO, it would be useful if there were a way to find out if a feature exists
> before trying to use it (like we have for almost every other feature.)

Then you would have to provide a way to test if the server allows sending 
stanzas and everything. The protocol would get incredibly complicated if you 
tested just any feature. In every protocol, there is some base that can not 
be tested, protocol states it is supported by anything, so why to test it? 
Would it make logical sense to say it is supported by any server and then 
allow client to test if it is?

I think it is more useful to show an error message about non-compliant server 
and users will ask the server owner to support it than client that silently 
ignores it.

-- 

Windows are like..
windows. Shiny but fragile and expensive.

Michal Vaner (Vorner)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20060205/0d06bce4/attachment-0002.pgp>