On 12/7/05, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vinod Panicker wrote: > > On 11/11/05, Vinod Panicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Sorry! The stanza should have been like this - > >> > >> <iq from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/balcony' type='set' id='roster_4'> > >> <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'> > >> <item jid='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' subscription='remove'/> > >> <item jid='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' subscription='remove'/> > >> <item jid='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' subscription='remove'/> > >> </query> > >> </iq> > >> > >> > >> On 11/10/05, Jacek Konieczny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 04:00:47PM +0530, Vinod Panicker wrote: > >>>> Consider this scenario - > >>>> > >>>> Client sends IQ stanza for removing three roster items from the roster > >>>> of [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > >>>> > >>>> <iq from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/balcony' type='set' id='roster_4'> > >>>> <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'> > >>>> <item jid='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' subscription='remove'/> > >>>> </query> > >>>> <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'> > >>>> <item jid='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' subscription='remove'/> > >>>> </query> > >>>> <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'> > >>>> <item jid='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' subscription='remove'/> > >>>> </query> > >>>> </iq> > >>> This is not a legal XMPP stanza. <iq/> stanza may contain only _one_ > >>> payload element. > > > > No closure on this, so what I'm doing is sending separate error and > > success stanzas to each of the items in the single iq stanza. > > What do you mean, no closure? Please provide exactly what you are > sending and receiving so we can critique it. Sending a separate roster > push for each item removed seems appropriate if you are sending multiple > removes in a single IQ set. However, sending multiple removes in a > single IQ set seems wrong (or at least misguided) to me. I thought the > spec prohibited including more than one <item/> when sending an IQ-set > to the server, but I can't find that in RFC 3921. What is the use case > for doing that? Perhaps we need to clean that up in rfc3921bis because I > think it's a bad idea.
Thanks for the response. Since the RFC is not expressly forbidding it (and there are places where we do need to have multiple items in an iq get, such as roster retrieval), I am assuming that a client MAY send such a request. Thats why I was looking at possible ways of handling it. Allowing something like this is definitely a bad idea. And I'm in favour of adding this in rfc3921bis. Regards, Vinod. PS: This is the closure I was talking abt :)
