Add message tag that indicates a playback message about ircv3-specifications HOT 13 CLOSED

👍

from ircv3-specifications.

This looks like an exact use case for BATCH with a (e.g.) "REPLAY" batch type, opinions?

from ircv3-specifications.

Hm, actually, now we have a choice “new batch type” vs. “new message tag” for every new feature, not limited to replay…
Maybe need to write some guideline when which of them should be used?

from ircv3-specifications.

I know very little about batch types vs message tags, but it seems to me that the batch approach assumes that there is some benefit for the client to process all the batch in one go at batch end.

There is no need for a client to delay processing till the end of a batch. This, the mechanics of a batch would be used as a grouped message tag.

from ircv3-specifications.

@jaingaurav #86 should fix that.

@attilamolnar if client is free to ignore batch types, ignored (e.g.) "REPLAY" batch type won't help much. So probably both batch and tag are needed here.

from ircv3-specifications.

@DarthGandalf If the client cares about which messages are being replayed why would it ignore it?

from ircv3-specifications.

Ok, so if client requested the capability, the client MUST take this batch type into account

from ircv3-specifications.

Okay I think I finally understand the point of using batch. It allows the client to know when the playback is complete which is visually displayed in certain clients.

@DarthGandalf So does that imply that supporting REPLAY requires a client to support BATCH type (even if it simply ignores them?).

from ircv3-specifications.

@jaingaurav if to do it this way, if client announces that is supports replay (via cap), server will add joins to buffer, and client needs to understand that joins inside this batch type are not real. If client doesn't announce that it supports replay, server puts only privmsg into the batch.

from ircv3-specifications.

@DarthGandalf Okay, I guess my argument for using a REPLAY message-tag instead of a batch type is that it would work for clients that do not yet support the batch feature (but do support message tags). However, given your recent changes to the batch feature I think the batch tag works well.

The only other concern I have for using a batch type vs a message tag would be that batch types do not seem to support nesting. For example, you could not include a NETJOIN batch within the replay batch.

from ircv3-specifications.

It supports nesting... See the example in batch spec

from ircv3-specifications.

I'm not sure what to do with clients which support tags, but not batches...

from ircv3-specifications.

The chathistory batch type which was added recently by @SaberUK covers this entirely.

from ircv3-specifications.