On Saturday 28 February 2009 10:59:57 Curtis King wrote:
> On 28-Feb-09, at 6:10 AM, Mickael Remond wrote:
> > I still think requiring the full JID is the best approach as it maps
> > with how to locate a session in the server when sending a message to a
> > client.
>
> I think that an more reasona
On 28-Feb-09, at 6:10 AM, Mickael Remond wrote:
I still think requiring the full JID is the best approach as it maps
with how to locate a session in the server when sending a message to a
client.
I think that an more reasonable requirement would be session
management can not be enabled unt
Hello Fabio,
Fabio Forno wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Jonathan Schleifer
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree that we need an alternative for privacy lists - but this is
>> definitely not partial roster retrival‼
>
> And what about partial activation? With partial activation you still
> manager
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Jonathan Schleifer
wrote:
>
> I agree that we need an alternative for privacy lists - but this is
> definitely not partial roster retrival‼
And what about partial activation? With partial activation you still
manager the roster as usual, and in a separate iq you
Am 28.02.2009 um 17:44 schrieb Mickael Remond:
End user do not seems to understand privacy lists, and most of all
they
need to make the effort of building them. They need to have build the
privacy list before being able to do what I described.
This suppose planning that seems to go beyond what
Hello,
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Ok, then how do you want to solve the use-case that you have thousands
> of users who should see you, but you're not interested in their
> presence? With you're aproach, they wouldn't see you - thus it would
> miserably fail for this use case.
See further.
> I
Am 28.02.2009 um 17:16 schrieb Mickael Remond:
I think it should. That's what most people do when they want to
achieve
what I described in a good way: They create several accounts (work,
home
for example) and use them accordingly.
This approach would allow to use one account to achieve the s
Hello,
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> That should be achieved by other means IMO. For example, you could
> only retrieve the roster group you are interested in and use a privacy
> list so that only this roster group receives your presence. The
> privacy list could also block incoming presences.
Our
Am 28.02.2009 um 15:30 schrieb Mickael Remond:
I think the main use case is really to restrict your roster (and
presence to a few group). Personnally, that's what refrain me to
connect
on XMPP sometimes, I want to talk with someone in a company group, but
will not be able / have time / be con
Hello,
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> I think it's a bad idea to filter the presence on that part of the
> roster that is retreived. For example, you might have 2000 people who
> all should see you so they can ask you stuff etc. But you got only
> about 10 people in whose presence you are interested
Alexander Gnauck wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> How does that change the processing model? I'm happy to add more
>> examples if that would be helpful?
>
> it does not change the processing model.
>
> If we don't plan to write another XEP for splitting data in chunks I
> recommend to use IBB
Hello Dave,
Dave Cridland wrote:
> Well, that's true, but you just encode in whatever else makes sense
> to relocate the session.
>
> We'd be using a node URI and session number tuple, probably.
What if you resume twice ?
You cannot implement session migration to the new node the user might be
Hello,
Waqas Hussain wrote:
> The use case is covered:
>
> "The 'from' attribute SHOULD be the full JID of the original sender in
> non-anonymous rooms, but MUST NOT be in semi-anonymous rooms (where
> the 'from' attribute SHOULD be set to the JID of the room itself)." -
> http://xmpp.org/extensi
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> Partial roster activation is a much much more attractive feature for
> me than partial roster retrieval. I would probably never consider
> using partial roster retrieval for my jabber account.
Partial retrieval will become useful by using t
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
>
> On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:54:38 +
>> Pedro Melo wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
>>>
There are several cases when subscription databases
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Matthew Wild wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Peter Saint-Andre
>> wrote:
>>> Matthew Wild wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Peter Saint-Andre
wrote:
> [...]
> We had rough consensus that the server w
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Mickael Remond
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The following use case does not seem covered if you want to use non
> anonymous or semi anonymous rooms (to get / display user data for
> example):
>
> 1. Enter a persistent room and say something bad.
> 2. Leave the room.
> 3.
17 matches
Mail list logo
