On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Bernd Fondermann<[email protected]> wrote: >> Yeah, I read this as well as also makes the interpretation that we >> should include the complete stanza, but examples seems to contradict >> that. > > What kind of contradiction is it? > (I must admit, my mental svn up failed when I wanted to get me to HEAD > on this discussion.)
:-) > All examples I see are completely without error echos. > I didn't find a single example for an error stanza containing the whole > or only a part of the original. Can you point me to one? The examples I refer to are those in the RFC and XMPP Ping specs. For example, in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt page 39 you will find some example. And in http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0199.html, you can find examples in each of the use cases (4.X). All of these include the original stanza, without the outermost iq element. >> For one, Smack can not handle our current error stanzas as showed by >> the integration tests I've written for XMPP Ping (not yet committed >> since they do not currently pass). In these, when sending an error, >> Smack will not be able to locate the <error> element. > > Why would Smack try and locate it? What happens if it can't? Does it Smack provides a IQ.getError() method for retrieving details on the error. In interacting with the current Vysper, this will return null. With the proposed patch, it will be correctly populated. > At xsf.org, there are two lists, > [email protected] and > [email protected] > which coul prove helpful if we are in doubt. Yeah, that's a good suggestion. At least I think the phrasing in 9.3.1 should be clarified. I'll ask over there. Given the spec examples however, I think we should change the Vysper implementation for now. /niklas
