Hi all, Ok, there might be an issue with one of the dependancies of MU-C. I'm currently working on coding a replacement, so watch this space.
Regards, David On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:53:18PM -0000, Rob Davis wrote: > > Hi David > > How is the MUC fix coming along? > > Here's the version info FYI (sorry about the delay - reasons beyond my > control): > > gcc-2.95.3-1c1r4 > libc-5.3.12-31 > > Cheers, > > Rob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Sutton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 5:30 AM > Subject: Re: [JDEV] conference room creation with MUC > > > > Hi all, > > > > I am looking into this whenever I can find a moment - i'm just also > trying to > > fix another issue with MU-Conference at the same time. > > > > Call for Information: > > > > Can people let me know what version of GCC and Libc that they > compiled > > MU-Conference with? I'm testing a theory. Please let me know how > the > > code is behaving. > > > > Regards, > > > > David > > > > Quoting Rob Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > OK - I've written a room config form parser and here's where i've > now > > > got up to: > > > > > > If I create the room by sending presence to it (as with the original > > > group chat protocol) and then request the config form by <iq> "get", > > > parse > > > it, write the response form, alter the values as required, send it > back > > > by <iq> "set" - it seems to work (except for note about public > below). > > > > > > However, if I don't send presence to the room first (as I need to > do - > > > this is why I am using MUC) and I send an <iq> "get" request for the > > > room config form, the form arrives not as an <iq> "result" but as an > <x> > > > element within a normal <message>. If I now parse the form as > before, > > > and sent my <iq> "set" command to change the form values.... it > doesn't > > > work!! (Though i do get an <iq> "result" back). > > > > > > If I alternatively put the form into a <message> back to the server > with > > > the new data in an <x> element (mimicking the format of the server > > > response), I get the form back with an error 403 "Forbidden". > > > > > > So, basically, if I want to create the room using the new config > forms > > > _only_, as one can do according to JEP45, it does not seem to work > as > > > expected. (According to the JEP, one should get an <iq> "result" not > a > > > <message> in response to the <iq> "get" request). > > > > > > Hoping to get there eventually! > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Rob Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 11:46 PM > > > Subject: Re: [JDEV] conference room creation > > > > > > > > > > Hi Van > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > I added the following at the start of the returned form as you > > > > suggested: > > > > > > > > <field type="hidden" var="form"><value>config</value></field> > > > > > > > > and it responded to the subsequent field value (room name) but, it > > > > seems, not the rest of the several selected fields. > > > > > > > > So it does look as if one needs to return the complete form, or > > > possibly > > > > the correct fields in sequence as far as the last field one wants > to > > > > alter... > > > > > > > > (I was hoping for a shortcut!) > > > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Van Gale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 11:14 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [JDEV] conference room creation > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:06:25 -0000, "Rob Davis" > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > > > > > > > > > I am however assuming that: > > > > > > > > > > > > * MUC doesn't require the complete configuration form back; > only > > > the > > > > > > fields to change > > > > > > > > > > This assumption may not be correct. I haven't tried sending > back > > > > partial > > > > > forms, but... > > > > > > > > > > > Any clues? > > > > > > > > > > Our client developer had a similar problem that we tracked down > to > > > him > > > > > not returning a hidden field named "config". (I think that was > the > > > > field > > > > > name... just going from memory here). > > > > > > > > > > So, I'm unsure whether sending partial form will work or not, > but > > > you > > > > > certainly need to include the hidden field regardless. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Van Gale > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > jdev mailing list > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > jdev mailing list > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > jdev mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev > > > > > > > > > -- > > David Sutton > > jid: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > jdev mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > jdev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
