Tinder

Investigate why Presence.Type and Presence.Show enums are not in RFC defined order

Details

  • Type: Task Task
  • Status: Resolved Resolved
  • Priority: Minor Minor
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • Affects Version/s: 1.2.2.
  • Fix Version/s: None
  • Labels:
    None

Description

Out of interest, I wonder why the Presence.Type and Presence.Show enums in Tinder are not in the same defined order as the RFC6121 http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6121.html#presence-syntax-type I wonder, because I an integrating with an external app that has defined a C enum with available = 0, error = 1, 2 = probe etc, which seemed a logical way to do it.

Activity

Hide
Permalink
Guus der Kinderen added a comment -

I believe that the current order of these Java enumeration is defined by chance. If anything, it should follow the XSD definition as provided in http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#schemas-client - although changing that now could potentially break some implementations. As in Java we don't need to refer to the ordinal of an element in an enumeration anyway, I'd opt to leave things as-is in Tinder.

Show
Guus der Kinderen added a comment - I believe that the current order of these Java enumeration is defined by chance. If anything, it should follow the XSD definition as provided in http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#schemas-client - although changing that now could potentially break some implementations. As in Java we don't need to refer to the ordinal of an element in an enumeration anyway, I'd opt to leave things as-is in Tinder.

People

  • Assignee:
    Guus der Kinderen
    Reporter:
    wroot
Vote (0)
Watch (1)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated:
    Resolved: