Summary: | [0.9] Add well-known bundles and our own caps to cache, and serve disco responses from it | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Telepathy | Reporter: | Will Thompson <will> |
Component: | gabble | Assignee: | Telepathy bugs list <telepathy-bugs> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | Telepathy bugs list <telepathy-bugs> |
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | medium | Keywords: | patch |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | Other | ||
OS: | All | ||
URL: | http://git.collabora.co.uk/?p=user/wjt/telepathy-gabble-wjt.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/improve-caps-cache-0.9 | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
i915 platform: | i915 features: | ||
Bug Depends on: | 24344 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Will Thompson
2009-10-07 08:48:57 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > Finally, we should remember our past caps hashes, and respond to disco requests for them, both to be a > better-behaved client and to work around an iChat bug. Just curious, what is this iChat bug? One can consider it is better-behaving to reply <item-not-found/> instead of old caps: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-May/018712.html http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-May/018713.html (In reply to comment #1) > Just curious, what is this iChat bug? If you return an error in response to a caps disco request, it asks you again. > One can consider it is better-behaving to > reply <item-not-found/> instead of old caps: > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-May/018712.html > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-May/018713.html I don't think that's *better* behaviour, just theoretically acceptable behaviour. Given that it's not exactly hard to remember our past hashes (we want to cache them anyway, so we don't disco other identical Gabbles!), I think responding to older hashes is better behaviour. (Hrm. I wonder what Gabble does if it makes a caps disco request, then the hash changes, then the first one returns...) (In reply to comment #2) > (Hrm. I wonder what Gabble does if it makes a caps disco request, then the hash > changes, then the first one returns...) Ah, it does the right thing, because of the caps serial number. Porting the branch to 0.9 wasn't too hard: see my 'improve-caps-cache-0.9' branch. + /* FIXME: we should satisfy any waiters for this node now, but I think that + * can wait till 0.9. + */ Please file a bug and reference it in this comment. Otherwise, ++ (In reply to comment #5) > + /* FIXME: we should satisfy any waiters for this node now, but I think that > + * can wait till 0.9. > + */ > > Please file a bug and reference it in this comment. Done (bug #24619) and merged: commit e435bafcde2fb77a43698ae49c316821eb41f571 Author: Will Thompson <will.thompson@collabora.co.uk> Date: Mon Oct 19 14:56:50 2009 +0100 Note bug number for satisfying waiters with our own hash commit 5edd11b52b0d2341ba648cbd87e33cb597bb8164 Merge: 9904163 e435baf Author: Will Thompson <will.thompson@collabora.co.uk> Date: Mon Oct 19 14:57:50 2009 +0100 Merge branch 'improve-caps-cache-0.9' Fixes fd.o bug #24377. Reviewed-by: Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie@collabora.co.uk> |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.