Really, this is a client implementation issue. You see the MUC room as too
formal, when in fact, they're completely throw-away, and the client could
handle it behind the scenes. Generate a random chat room, invite everyone
in, have your conversation, and leave easily, without the formal
2008/6/19 Tomasz Sterna [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Dnia 2008-06-18, śro o godzinie 23:18 -0700, Nathan Fritz pisze:
Really, this is a client implementation issue. [...]
Really?
yes
- What if there is no MUC server available in your server disco?
Implementation issue
- What if there is no MUC
Dnia 2008-06-19, czw o godzinie 11:49 +0200, Sander Devrieze pisze:
Do people who use this need MUC?
No.
They happily use Skype where this (and many, many more) just works.
--
/\_./o__ Tomasz Sterna
(/^/(_^^' http://www.xiaoka.com/
._.(_.)_ im:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right, I do think we need a XEP to make this just work but it should be
some simple service discovery to get the default MUC implementation and some
identifier for the client that this is a casual groupchat.
- What if there is no MUC server available in your server disco?
It's a requirement.
-
I think http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/private-muc.html is what you
guys are looking for.
- Norman Rasmussen
- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Home page: http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Nathan Fritz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Right, I do think we need a XEP to
Hello,
I think the problem of a muc derived use is about all the stuffs that
many people don't care of, or don't understand. When you go to a muc,
you must choose a muc server explicitely (even though it is the server
where you are already hosted) and you are proposed to chose a nickname
for
And to add more details, I would say that maybe a server receiving this
will send to Romeo this message, with a new 'cc' option:
Code:
message
to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/orchard'
cc='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/balcony'
from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
type='chat'
xml:lang='en'
JabberForum wrote:
I think the problem of a muc derived use is about all the stuffs that
many people don't care of, or don't understand. When you go to a muc,
you must choose a muc server explicitely (even though it is the server
where you are already hosted) and you are proposed to chose a
I think we are all chasing things around in circles here.
o This is all supported by
XEP-0033http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0033.html
o No servers support it
o No clients support it
Jehan to clarify your code (according to XEP-0033):
--
message
to='[EMAIL
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Dickinson
Sent: 19 June 2008 04:08 PM
To: Jabber/XMPP software development list
Subject: Re: [jdev] conversing with multiple users, but not MUC
...
PSA and JH made a really good job of that
On 06/19/2008 4:39 AM, Norman Rasmussen wrote:
I think http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/private-muc.html is what you
guys are looking for.
Yes, OLPC uses something very much like that in the link-local case. So
we need to poke Dave Cridland about finishing the proposal. :)
Peter
--
Peter
Ok this XEP 33 is a nice one and is apparently what I was wishing with
my clumsy example. :-) I will have a look at this someday when I will
have time (again another XEP to read!).
--
Jehan
Jehan's Profile:
2008/6/19 Jonathan Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think we are all chasing things around in circles here.
o This is all supported by
XEP-0033http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0033.html
o No servers support it
o No clients support it
Jehan to clarify your code (according to XEP-0033):
On 06/19/2008 8:27 AM, JabberForum wrote:
Ok this XEP 33 is a nice one and is apparently what I was wishing with
my clumsy example. :-) I will have a look at this someday when I will
have time (again another XEP to read!).
Yes we have a lot of XEPs. The point of all those is to give you all
Adam Pisoni wrote:
our way towards building a general xmpp4r component framework that is
analogous to xmpp4r-simple, but for component development.
Have you thought about contributing this framework as a part of XMPP4R?
Should be convenient now that it is being developed at GitHub.
Peter Saint-Andre;1152 Wrote:
Yes we have a lot of XEPs. The point of all those is to give you all
the
tools you need to build the applications you want to build. But
somehow
people keep thinking up new features we might need...
Yes. But can you really blame us? I will speak for my
On 06/19/2008 12:48 PM, JabberForum wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre;1152 Wrote:
Yes we have a lot of XEPs. The point of all those is to give you all
the
tools you need to build the applications you want to build. But
somehow
people keep thinking up new features we might need...
Yes. But can
Yes I have. I figure I'll work on it with everyone first and if the
community thinks it makes sense, that's what I'll do.This is very
much uncharted territory. People have created one off components, but
there are no general component frameworks. I'm sure each one-off has
implemented
All,
I had started coding around that topic a few weeks ago but got slowed
down more than I expected. Anywy a first few gradual steps for those
interested.
http://www.defuze.org/archives/20-Microblogging-with-XMPP-and-AtomPub.-Dumping-code..html
- Sylvain
PS: Sorry for cross posting.
19 matches
Mail list logo
