Subject: [xmpp] presence stanzas versus pubsub

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:18:22 +0200

Hi, let me a question:

If XMPP would be written right now from scratch and there were *no*
implementation yet, would you chose pubsub mechanism (XEP-060) rather
than presence stanzas in order to deliver basic presence status? For
example, avatar (XEP-0084) uses pubsub.

AFAIK pubsub offers some advantages:
- Filtering capability.
- Bandwith saving (just notify the requested information to watchers).
- Very extensible (by creating new event types).

However simple presence stanzas mechanism also has some advantages:
- Direct presence deliver to a specific contact.
- It seems easier to implement.

Thanks for any comment. Best regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:33:19 -0600

> - It seems easier to implement.

We're not working on XMPP 2.0 right now. I'm sure most XMPP developers
have their own list of things they'd want to change, if we were working
on XMPP 2.0. But we're not.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:34:51 +0200

> on XMPP 2.0. But we're not.

Ok, I just wanted to know if pubsub mechanism would be suitable enough
to completely replace presence stanzas.

Thanks anyway.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:47:30 -0600

> to completely replace presence stanzas.

Yes, it would.

However, if we were working on XMPP 2.0 (which we're not, did I mention
that? :) then I think we'd do something more radical, for example
defining a new default namespace with additional primitives above and
beyond <message/>, <presence/>, and <iq/> -- perhaps we'd add things
like <publish/> and <subscribe/> to the mix.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:49:39 +0200

> like <publish/> and <subscribe/> to the mix.

Thanks a lot :)

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>