On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has any MUC implementation coded in support for the "unique room name > request" feature described in Section 10.1.4 of XEP-0045? I think this > feature is unnecessary and (in the interest of simplification) I would like > to remove it from XEP-0045. >
Gloox uses it, and falls back to a simple hash if the server returns an error (ie. doesn't support the request): http://camaya.net/api/gloox-trunk/classgloox_1_1UniqueMUCRoom.html Matthew.
