XSF Discussion - 2018-08-08

flow: the idea behind xmpp and xmpps in the same bucket is to allow server admins to define priority+weight between them

In practice you can do whatever

It should probably not be a 'should' then. I don't understand why server admins would ever want to do that

moparisthebest, I get that, but why should server admins want that?

FWIW, i've recently implemented "multiple SRV service/proto ordering" in MiniDNS. But I still haven't heard a reason why the XEP specifies it

another question related to RSM, because it's not clear to me https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html#jump, the <index>, it's starting from the end of the results (for MAM the older messages) or the beginning (the most recent) ?

> It does that by including in its request the index of the first item to be returned I seems to be from the beginning

edhelas, the index zero refers to the first item in the full query reuslt

so for MAM it's starting from the oldest messages, and for a Pubsub node starting from the most recent

maybe

edhelas: I have no time to check right now (I'm at work), but I think I've experienced some inconsistencies on your blogs posts on ejabberd, and on mine with SàT Pubsub. I wanted to check that before reporting it (I'm not sure who's wrong), but the result is that when I use RSM I get oldest publications from your node.

ok so there's definitly unclear things in the XEPs

not sure if it's in the XEP on just an implementation bug, I'll definitely have to check that this week, and I'll check with you then.

but right now I can't

to me Pubsub node always list items from the most recent to the oldest, with RSM the <index> is then starting from the most recent (order by created_at desc offset :index)

for MAM it seems (but again I'm not sure) to be the opposite

I kind of remember having asked something about that at a XMPP summit also

ejabberd implements RSM for Pubsub but not MAM from what Holger told me

SàT Pubsub implements both

What?

RSM is required for MAM, it's not required for pubsub

MattJ sorry, I was talking about the <index> option only

Oh, ok

ejabberd does supports RSM for MAM but not the <index> parameter :)

MattJ but I'm curious to know your point of view regarding this ordering thing between Pubsub items and MAM messages

I'm considering an order parameter in MAM anyway

I think it would be the best :)

edhelas: http://jabber.996255.n3.nabble.com/XEP-0313-why-it-is-really-not-a-good-idea-to-use-MAM-with-Pubsub-td36116.html ==> I have mentioned chronological issue there.

Oh, is this about Pubsub + MAM + RSM?

no

Or just Pubsub + RSM?

for me it was just Pubsub + RSM

but MAM + RSM + Pubsub is another issue

Ok, good

I do use MAM + RSM + Pubsub

The following might be worth watching, to apply to the XMPP community: https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/9-ignoring-negativity/ https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/174-ignoring-negativity-followup/ "Dealing with negativity in [large] projects"

(or any big enough community, for that matter)