Re: [Standards] MUC History clearing

[Joe Hildebrand]

Any change we make to support clearing history is "the new way". It has no
bearing on testing or interoperability.

On 5/13/08 3:10 PM, "Boyd Fletcher" <boyd.fletcher (AT) je (DOT) jfcom.mil> wrote:

> so where do we stand? old way or xep-50 approach? I think the old way is
> better from a testing and compliance standpoint. if you start making
> extensions to MUC, testing interoperability is going to be a problem.
>
> boyd
>
>
>
> On 5/9/08 5:47 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter (AT) stpeter (DOT) im> wrote:
>
>> On 05/09/2008 3:20 PM, Gaston Dombiak wrote:
>>> Good point. Based on where we are standing now I think I would prefer
>>> adding this functionality following the existing style instead of
>>> having a hybrid solution. And then in a future version of the XEP do
>>> a major refactoring and change things to use ad-hoc commands.
>>
>> Gosh that would be major refactoring indeed. I don't know if that would
>> be worth the effort...
>>
>> Peter
>

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 05/13/2008 6:04 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> Any change we make to support clearing history is "the new way". It has no
> bearing on testing or interoperability.

Right.

If we were defining XEP-0045 right now, we'd use ad-hoc commands for
features like kick and ban. As people want to define new features, it
might make sense to use ad-hoc commands, because there is no way we can
foresee all the features people may want to add over time.

Peter

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