Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Aggregations are confusing #1405

Closed
turt2live opened this issue Jan 17, 2023 · 4 comments · Fixed by #1424
Closed

Aggregations are confusing #1405

turt2live opened this issue Jan 17, 2023 · 4 comments · Fixed by #1424
Labels
clarification An area where the expected behaviour is understood, but the spec could do with being more explicit

Comments

@turt2live
Copy link
Member

An m.replace event is aggregated by a server to (sometimes) create a bundle: none of these words are intuitive.

See https://spec.matrix.org/v1.4/client-server-api/#server-side-aggregation-of-mreplace-relationships and related sections.

@turt2live turt2live added the clarification An area where the expected behaviour is understood, but the spec could do with being more explicit label Jan 17, 2023
@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Jan 17, 2023

IMHO the main problem here is the term "bundle", which I have long hated. (I think we iterated quite a lot on this on #1062).

We should refer to either "an aggregation" if we are talking about the aggregation in general, or "bundled aggregation" if we specifically want to refer to the automatic inclusion in unsigned).

An m.replace event is aggregated by a server to (sometimes) create a bundle: none of these words are intuitive.

No, all of the events which relate to a given event (m.replace included) are aggregated by a server to create an aggregation. Sometimes we include that aggregation along with the original event; that is called a bundled aggregation. m.replace isn't particularly special here.

@clokep
Copy link
Member

clokep commented Jan 17, 2023

As a bit of an contrary view -- what's the point of separating the "bundling" of it into a different term? Since the /aggregations endpoint was dropped from MSC2675 I don't think there's any other way of viewing an aggregation besides it being in unsigned?

@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Jan 17, 2023

what's the point of separating the "bundling" of it into a different term?

only that it gives us a useful term to describe when the aggregation is included and when it is not. But I don't disagree, we could probably live without mentioning bundles or bundling at all and our lives would be better for it.

@turt2live
Copy link
Member Author

fwiw, I find I keep swapping "bundle" and "aggregation" because "bundle" is more intuitive for what's happening (not everything feels aggregated, but everything feels bundled).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
clarification An area where the expected behaviour is understood, but the spec could do with being more explicit
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants