We're updating the issue view to help you get more done. 

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

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.

Environment

None

Acceptance Test - Entry

None

Activity

Show:
Guus der Kinderen
June 18, 2011, 9:55 AM

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.

Assignee

Guus der Kinderen

Reporter

wroot

Labels

None

Expected Effort

None

Affects versions

Priority

Minor
Configure