<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Jorge Guntanis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jorge.guntanis@telcentris.com">jorge.guntanis@telcentris.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>You always retrieve the vCard, that's where your avatar comes from, the vCard storage is also optimized...<span></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Not in this case, actually. We are using XEP-0084 for avatars (<a href="http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0084.html">http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0084.html</a>), and while we are using vCards, they are retrieved on demand.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><span>You can always create your own module to ask the gender and have this gender stored in memcache for even better response times.</span></div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>That's an option, indeed.<br>Or, for a more standard approach, we could use PubSub.<br>My only concern is the increase in traffic that this would cause, mainly for MUC.<br>Basically, this would add 2*n messages from clients to the server and back, every time someone enters a room, where 'n' is the number of occupants and could be pretty big. (The math is: n messages from the new occupant to retrieve everyone's gender + n messages from everyone else to get the new occupant's gender.)<br>
Rethinking it, it doesn't seem like toooo much. What do you think?<br></div></div>