Would people think it unexpected if they did a disco#items on pubsub.server.tld, and got back results for something1@pubsub.server.tld, something2@pubsub.server.tld, something3@pubsub.server.tld... each with a single node per JID?
Kev
(Note use of 'unexpected' rather than 'illegal')
Wojtekhas left
jabberjockehas joined
Simonhas joined
Simonhas left
Simonhas joined
ralphm
Kev: I think so, yet.
ralphm
yes
ralphm
It doesn't seem illegal, though.
ralphm
Reading the prose in XEP-0030, it does seem to favor addressable entities (i.e. things with a JID) over using nodes.
martin.hewitt@surevine.comhas left
ralphm
Having an empty node identifier is ill-defined in XEP-0060. Of course there's a reference to a section on collections, but that section has moved to it's own XEP.
ralphm
(and I am still of the opinion that collections are not a thing to want, even though it might appear that way at first)
dwd
ralphm, I like collections.
ralphm
dwd: no you don't, trust me.
dwd
Kev, Unexpected, yes.
dwd
ralphm, I implemented "full" collections. I really quite like the notion.
ralphm
I haven't found any compelling use case where you want to deal with DAGs and all the explicitness of setting them up. I did think I wanted to use them on multiple occasions, and then always did a second implementation with implicit nodes as an interface to an existing (or new even) backend's business logic.
ralphm
Some of those nodes would kinda feel like collections, but without all the hassle and fixed semantics.
dwd
Yes, I think if you're implementing a customer pubsub layer over existing logic, you don't need them. But I'd prefer a way to avoid that being the only way to deploy pubsub.
ralphm
dwd: I'm sympathetic to that idea, but it always seems to result in distributed knowledge about 'resources', with all the synchronisation issues that come with that.
ralphm
I'd like to compare this with the way the web currently works, especially after CGI was 'invented'. Most of the time, you don't explicitly create resources there, either.
Steffen Larsenhas left
dwd
Don't *say* that. The REST people will crawl out of the woodwork.
dwd
Once they start, they never shut up.
ralphm
Fortunately, I'm room admin.
ralphm
And I'm also ok with creating leaf nodes explicitly. But collections are arguably designed to mimick some existing backend topology, and I think it's better to do that by making the pubsub protocol part of that backend, instead of treating it as an external, second-class thing.
jabberjockehas left
ralphm
Taking that to its conclusion, you generally don't need all the explicitness of collection node configuration.
ralphm
And probably also not exposing the internal structure of where an event came from.
Simonhas left
Simonhas joined
Kev
ralphm / dwd: Thanks.
ralphm
Kev: I'd love to hear more about the actual use case.
Kev
I think it's just a wart of someone not knowing what the usual way of doing things was.
Kev
I saw this happening, there's no reason for it to need to be this way. I just wanted to check I wasn't just being Wrong before I suggested it was unusual for them to do this.
dwd
As I recall, at one point, that was considered the right way.
ralphm
dwd: wait what?
dwd
ralphm, Pubsub nodes having a local-part to their jid.
Kev
I don't remember this.
ralphm
dwd: I think you are confused with http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0024.html
dwd
Oh, no, I'm muddled. It was resource-parts that were added.
dwd
'60§4.6.1 I'm thinking of.
dwd
The Node identifier MUST NOT be specified by the node identifier, in fact.
waqashas left
dwd
Yay for overloaded terms!
Kev
Ambiguity is underrated.
Kev
And, to be clear, when I say 'ambiguity', I'm using it in the sense of 'being clear'.
emchohas left
emchohas joined
ralphm
Kev: if you want to argue against 'wrong', have a look here: http://howtosdeit.blogspot.nl/2014/02/comunicate-rabbitmq-with-publish.html?spref=tw
Marandahas joined
Simonhas joined
Kev
Ta.
Kev
As an aside, I've decided not to put up Swift ideas for GSoC this year. I don't think I've got time to mentor properly.
Zashhas left
hildjjhas joined
ralphm
Kev: rather that then finding out while students are at it.
ralphm
Kev: good call
Kev
It's a shame. I like GSoC, but work has become...busy.
Simon
This whole day-job thing really cramps one's style.
ralphm
:-)
Kev
Wouldn't swap it.
ralphm
"They say Google is dropping #XMPP on May 15th. So it seems we are dropping Hangouts in the day of our first anniversary. F*ck them!" — LoquiIM (https://twitter.com/LoquiIM/statuses/432867870016434176)
Tobias
they?
Tobias
are they referring to some magic 8-ball?
ralphm
Don't know. But if that turns out to be true, I can see how they will support unauthenticated encryption on all s2s traffic by May 19.
Kev
Heh.
Simon
Anyone know any of the Loqui guys?
ralphm
I don't think I do.
hildjjhas left
Simon
I've asked Sonny Piers since he works in Spain and in XMPP and I don't think there are many XMPP startups in Spain.
Simonhas joined
ralphm
As a counter argument, I know virtually no XMPP developers in The Netherlands, where I'm sure there are some.
Zashhas joined
dwd
{citation-needed}
dwd
I mean for the May 15th thing.
dwd
Ah, Google Voice is dropping XMPP support on May 15th.
Zash
Google Voice has XMPP support?
dwd
http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/11/04/merging-of-google-voice-and-hangouts-will-result-shutting-down-all-3rd-party-voice-apps-in-may-2014/ and so on. Announced on 2013/11/01 I think.
Tobias
Zash, come on, admit it, you'll gonna miss it
Zash
Yes, me, of all people, is gonig to miss it.
SouLhas joined
Marandahas joined
Marandahas joined
SouLhas left
Simonhas left
SouLhas joined
Marandahas left
Marandahas joined
waqashas joined
Lloydhas left
Simonhas joined
Simonhas left
Link Mauvehas joined
Lancehas joined
Tobiashas joined
Marandahas left
Marandahas joined
bearhas joined
waqashas left
stpeterhas joined
waqashas joined
Link Mauvehas joined
ralphm
dwd: yeah, that's the only stuff I could find, too. I'd be very amazed if all XMPP support, i.e. the old Google Talk network, would be shutdown at that date. Of course I've been surprised before.