On 8/31/11 4:40 AM, Alexander Holler wrote: > Am 31.08.2011 04:29, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre: >> On 8/16/11 3:44 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Peter >>> Saint-Andre<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 8/16/11 2:38 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Peter >>>>> Saint-Andre<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> While completing my edits on XEP-0045, I noticed again the feature >>>>>> for >>>>>> requesting a unique room name. This feature seems unnecessary because >>>>>> the client can simply generate a unique room name on its own >>>>>> (e.g., by >>>>>> using a UUID). Shall we remove it? >>>>> >>>>> I wasn't convinced there was a compelling reason last time, and I'm >>>>> still not (I note again that server generated names can achieve more >>>>> than just uniqueness), to remove this completely (It's an >>>>> already-deployed feature of a Draft standard), >>>> >>>> Is it actually in use? >>> >>> ISTR from the discussions previously that Gajim, at least, has >>> deployed it. >> >> Lot of good that does them, if no servers support it. :) >> >> In any case, I'm comfortable moving this to a separate spec. > > That feature doesn't make much sense because the service can't guarantee > that the returned (unique) ID is still unique when the client starts > using it. If the service want's to guarantee that, the ID has to be > reserved (maybe for a limited time). So I would suggest too to remove > the feature.
Right, that's the traditional argument against the feature. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
