The more I read this thread, the more I agree with both sides...
Is there middle ground to be had? What if XMPP were defined in such a
way that if a connection/session attempted to auth as an already online
one, it was up to the server. If the server decided it was allowed, it
sent the appropria
I forgot to mention why I needed this behavior in the first place... I
implemented a custom web-based chat system for a client that uses jabberd as
its backend. However, one of the requirements for the system was that users
could only log on once, and that if they tried to log on a second time,
Ah well there you go then, I was just getting at the fact that there is
a way for clients to tell and that they must be fixed to only
auto-reconnect on network problems.
On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 12:02 am, David Waite wrote:
Both the open-source jabber.org and the commercial jabber.c
Both the open-source jabber.org and the commercial jabber.com
implementations send a stream:error before replacing the current session
with a new one. Exodus is an example of a client which does not
reconnect in this case.
-David Waite
Richard Dobson wrote:
Exactly but the thing is that they
But as ive just said in my previous email I dont think it actually gets
a stream error, and IMO clients should only auto-reconnect in the case
of a network problem, and as ive said in my previous email that means
it wouldn't have received a which it would have got
when the server initiates a d
Exactly but the thing is that they dont get a stream error, at the
moment the server ends the session with a and drops
the socket, and because that sequence of events means the server is
terminating the connection, which i think will only happen at the
moment because of another session connect
> David Waite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25-2-2003 22:12:25:
> >
> >IMHO, this is a bug in those clients. If the server says it is
> >disconnecting you (via a stream:error), you should not immediately
> >reconnect.
> Most would wait a few seconds I imagine.. but lot's of clients do this.
>
David Waite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25-2-2003 22:12:25:
>
>IMHO, this is a bug in those clients. If the server says it is
>disconnecting you (via a stream:error), you should not immediately
>reconnect.
Most would wait a few seconds I imagine.. but lot's of clients do this.
And because it's
IMHO, this is a bug in those clients. If the server says it is
disconnecting you (via a stream:error), you should not immediately
reconnect.
-David Waite
Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
"Richard Dobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25-2-2003 13:31:12:
Yea sure I wasnt arguing against the "option",
Are the LGPL and JOSL not good enough? Many libs out there, such as
JabberOO, are under a license like that.
--temas
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 12:28:30PM -0500, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
> Pardon me if this is a FAQ, I'm new to this list.
>
> I'm curious if there are any BSD-like lic
Though this was interesting
"Balance of power to shift in IM realm "
http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1023-985919.html?type=pt&part=msnbc&tag=alert
&form=feed&subj=cnetnews
Trent
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
Of Leo Ostwald
Sent: Tuesday, Febru
Pardon me if this is a FAQ, I'm new to this list.
I'm curious if there are any BSD-like licensed (i.e. suitable for
closed-source commercial applications) jabber client libraries out there
in C or C++?
Thanks!
___
jdev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
h
- Original Message -
From: "Tijl Houtbeckers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:52 PM
Subject: Re:Re: [JDEV] jabberd patch
> "Richard Dobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25-2-2003 15:30:10:
> >> Then again, not using this patch has it's own p
"Richard Dobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25-2-2003 15:30:10:
>> Then again, not using this patch has it's own problems when two
>> clients with auto-reconnect start to "fight" over the same
>> connection.
>> So this patch is definatly usefull for those who want to avoid this
>> type of
> >> Then again, not using this patch has it's own problems when two clients
> >> with auto-reconnect start to "fight" over the same connection. So this
> >> patch is definatly usefull for those who want to avoid this type of
> >> behaviour.
> > I am not sure which I prefer, but I think there shoul
> "Richard Dobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25-2-2003 13:31:12:
> >
> >Yea sure I wasnt arguing against the "option", but it shouldnt be
> >standard behaviour and must be documented that it can cause
> >issues/problems, so the admin can make an informed choice of which
> >behaviour they want.
>
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Ralph Meijer wrote:
>> Then again, not using this patch has it's own problems when two clients
>> with auto-reconnect start to "fight" over the same connection. So this
>> patch is definatly usefull for those who want to avoid this type of
>> behaviour.
> I am not sure which I
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 01:51:28PM +0100, Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
> "Richard Dobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25-2-2003 13:31:12:
> >
> >Yea sure I wasnt arguing against the "option", but it shouldnt be
> >standard behaviour and must be documented that it can cause
> >issues/problems, so the
"Richard Dobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25-2-2003 13:31:12:
>
>Yea sure I wasnt arguing against the "option", but it shouldnt be
>standard behaviour and must be documented that it can cause
>issues/problems, so the admin can make an informed choice of which
>behaviour they want.
>
Then a
Yea sure I wasnt arguing against the "option", but it shouldnt be standard
behaviour and must be documented that it can cause issues/problems, so the
admin can make an informed choice of which behaviour they want.
Richard
- Original Message -
From: "David 'TheRaven' Chisnall" <[EMAIL PROT
I can see that this would cause problems in the case that a client died
in such a way that the socket stayed open (not entirely uncimmon on
X11). In this case the user would be unable to reconnect without
changing resource name, while at the moment they could just kick their
old connection off
But remember as already noted doing it around that way introduces problems
for the end user especially the novice user.
- Original Message -
From: "Wes Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:10 PM
Subject: [JDEV] jabberd patch
> Attached is
22 matches
Mail list logo
