On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:28, Michael Jakl<jakl.mich...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 16:20, Bernd Fondermann<bf_...@brainlounge.de> wrote: >> Michael Jakl wrote: >>> The extension is completely agnostic about the "to" address, it'll >>> happily take no "to" address as well (subdomain installation). >> >> So to have two pubsubs running side by side, either pubsub1.vysper.org >> and pubsub2.vysper.org, or pubs...@vysper.org and pubs...@vysper.org, >> we'd have to still do some works. But that's fine for now. > > I think this is part of the Component architecture, isn't it? I'm not > sure if our module should verify that it's the correct recipient of a > message. > > I wasn't aware of the goal to have multiple instances of the extension > running in one Vysper instance since it already supports multiple > collection nodes and leaf nodes,
It's not a goal, but I'd like to understand what the current limitations might be. And, if you think of it for a second, two pubsubs for two distinct business needs could make sense. > but I think it should be no problem > as long as the ProtocolWorker(?) routes the stanzas to the correct > instance. That's right, the core has to make sure to route correctly. But the pubsub part or any other extension has to somehow make the information available which stanzas it expects to have routed to it (as handlers do, too). And that information is not in pubsub right now... > >> Maybe we should record such open tasks as 'improvement'- or >> 'feature'-JIRAs so we can keep track of them. ... and that's what we have to keep track of in respect to the pubsub module. > > Yes. Should we create a new JIRA-component (XEP-0114)? We could have a JIRA for that, too (if there isn't already). Bernd
