jdev - 2021-05-12

  1. Sam

    I know I've seen this discussed before, but I never remember what to do: ad-hoc commands says `The requester MAY include the "action='execute'", although this is implied.` so what is the point? Do things have problems if you add it or leave it off?

  2. jonas’

    oh no

  3. jonas’

    I get flashbacks whenever someone brings up Ad-Hoc’s @action

  4. Sam

    Yah, it's irritating and I never remember what the decision was every time I look at it

  5. jonas’


  6. Sam

    meh, just going to leave it off and hope nothing breaks.

  7. Sam

    Same with cancelation. It returns a result, but why? Is there anything else it can do other than be a success?

  8. Sam

    (or an IQ error I guess, but at the ad-hoc level I Just don't understand why all this optional stuff that as far as I can tell is meaningless)

  9. flow

    Sam, you mean xep50 § 2.4.3? What else should the command return if the cancellation was successful?

  10. Sam

    just an empty iq result

  11. flow

    besides it can also be an error response, e.g. if the session is unknown

  12. flow

    ahh yes, the payload in case of the result IQ could be considered redundant

  13. Sam

    Right, it could be an IQ error, I just don't see the oint of having a payload if it was successful. It tells me nothing as far as I can tell, so why bother unmarshaling it at all?

  14. flow

    I believe there are some (rare) cases in XMPP where this helps the client to drop some state while the request is processed (or to not keep the state in the first place), but I don't think this is one of them

  15. flow

    so it may be simply a bad design :)

  16. Sam

    cool, thanks for the sanity check