[jdev] That presence problem again

[JD Conley]

> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:22:33PM +0000, Nathan Fritz wrote:
> > I don't see this as being the client's job.
> 
> I completly agree! My view was about how the client could fix that
> problem. And rather than the workarounds, a real solution would be
> more desireable than quirks&hacks. And a server side solution would
> of course be even more desireable :-)
> 
> [.snip.]
> > I don't believe that the client should take it upon itself to nag
> > about presence, as presence is high traffic enough as it is.
> 
> I indeed agree with that. Having clients polling is very undesireable
> w.r.t. bandwidth and traffic.
> 
> [.trunc.]

Right. And nobody will argue with you on that point. As I mentioned a
few posts back we have all been talking about this on the Standards list
quite a bit and have made good progress. There is, however, the tactical
issue at hand which I believe this email is about: it will take
weeks/months/years for server changes to address ghosting to propagate
the net. Until then the client can use something like the IQ method I
mentioned before (sparingly) to make sure the other endpoint is still
available. Auto updates in clients make this happen much faster than
everyone hosting servers will do upgrades.

-JD