Just a thought, untested: re-join the rooms the user is on after going invisible?
-- Jonathan Dickinson Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:56:57 +0300 From: blueob...@gmail.com To: jdev@jabber.org Subject: Re: [jdev] Question on Presence, Invisibility and MUC Hi Guys, Can I know the procedure of creating a room please, I'm searching for it day long please help and do we have the delegate methods of creating a room and do other functions too... Please help me in taking a start in creating a room thank you. On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Daniel Dormont <d...@greywallsoftware.com> wrote: On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Waqas Hussain <waqa...@gmail.com> wrote: On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Daniel Dormont <d...@greywallsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > In my XMPP application, users can exchange both private messages and > presence and join MUCs. Ok, simple enough. I've implemented invisibility > according to XEP-0126. I'd like the users to be still able to join MUCs > while invisible, though. The issue I'm running into is that the first step > in going invisible is sending an unavailable presence for broadcasting to > all contacts: <presence type='unavailable'/> > > Unfortunately for me, this has the additional effect of kicking the user out > of any MUCs they'd joined in that particular session. I've already figured > out how to tweak the privacy list so users can join MUCs while invisible to > individual contacts, basically it just looks like > > <list name='invisible'> > <item type='jid' > value='conference.mydomain' > action='allow' > order='1'> > <presence-out/> > </item> > <item action='deny' order='2'> > <presence-out/> > </item> > </list> > > But I'm running into this problem when the user tries to go "globally" > invisible while already in one or more MUCs. Is there any way around this? > My initial thought was to direct the unavailable presence to only the > primary (IM) domain rather than having no "to" as indicated in the XEP, but > that doesn't seem to broadcast to anybody, so contacts who already thought > the user was online will continue to think so. > > Is there any way around this? Or will I have to change my approach to > invisibility? > Blocking out-going presence to the chatrooms before you send unavailable presence might work. This is a hack which depends on the server not sending unavailable presence to blocked contacts. Directed presence is almost completely separate from normal presence status, with this one exception: unavailable presence broadcasts. I'm beginning to think this is more harmful than helpful. Relevant spec section: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6121#section-4.6.3 I think I need some more time to digest that section. There's something I still don't quite follow about it. But in the mean time, your trick of temporarily employing a privacy list that's the exact opposite of the normal invisibility one, worked fine, so thanks. dan > thanks, > Dan > -- Waqas Hussain _______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: jdev-unsubscr...@jabber.org _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: jdev-unsubscr...@jabber.org _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: jdev-unsubscr...@jabber.org _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: jdev-unsubscr...@jabber.org _______________________________________________
