Sorry, that is exactly what I meant only expressed better :) Julian
Casey Crabb wrote: > Actually, presence notifications should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and not > a particular resource because presence notifications should be broadcast > to all resources currently connected. Messages should go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > and then be distributed to the resource with highest priority. > > Also, transports should rebroadcast presence information to > newly-connecting resources so that the presence of all roster items is > known. The aim transport does not do this, the icqv7t and msn both do to > my knowledge. > > -- > Casey > > Julian Fitzell wrote: > >> This has been discussed to some degree before and no agreement was >> ever really reached as far as I remember. But at the moment, the >> transports are just plain unaware of resources. >> >> I personally believe that correct behaviour is: >> - transports should send presence notifications to [EMAIL PROTECTED] not >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/baz - that way the server can direct the presence to the >> highest priority resource. Currently at least some of the transports >> remember what resource you logged in with and only send presence there. >> - same policy for messages, I think. Just because I logged in from >> home first, doesn't mean when I come online at work I don't want to >> get my msn, icq, etc. messages >> >> Julian >> >> David Waite wrote: >> >>> So what is the correct behavior or a transport in regards to resources? >>> >>> -David Waite >>> >>> Julian Fitzell wrote: >>> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> >>>>> maybe this is already known... >>>>> >>>>> when i added connected with a second resource(/resource2) to my >>>>> jabber account (server amessage.de) both connected had no priority >>>>> set (0). >>>>> Whatever other clients keep on sending msgs to the last connected >>>>> resource(/resource2) the icq/aim gateway sends itīs msgs to the >>>>> older resource(/resource1) the gateways to not even become >>>>> available to the /resource2 >>>>> >>>>> is this a transport bug or must it be my fault? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Definitely a transport bug as far as I'm concerned. The transports >>>> make poor use of resources and presence in my opinion. I started >>>> trying to hack it to work better at one point but didn't get very >>>> far. I think it's just low on people's priority lists. >>>> >>>> But definitely not your fault. >>>> >>>> Julian -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Beta4 Productions (http://www.beta4.com) _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
