On 16 May 2014 06:43, Christian Schudt <christian.sch...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > 2. Is the <actor/> actually needed in the muc#admin namespace? There are > no examples, but it's in the XML schema. > > > > > > Yes, see http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#example-90 > > Example 90 is in the #user namespace. > > Ah, yes, you're quite right - I can't find any use for <actor/> within the admin namespace at all. > > > > 3. Can a client request multiple affiliations and get all affiliated > users? Like: > > > > <query xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#admin";> > > <item affiliation="member"/> > > <item affiliation="owner"/> > > <item affiliation="admin"/> > > </query> > > > > Which would return all members. > > > > > > It's not against the schema, of course, but I think that's there for > multiple modifications - something I actually think is a bad idea. I don't > see any support for it in the text, though. > > Actually I think, this would be fine and it also feels natural to do. > Modifying owner/admin/member list is all the same and one could modify > affiliations of all users in one run. > If a client sends an updated affiliations list to the server, the server > should not care about the users' previous affiliations anyway. So it > doesn't know/care if the client wanted to update (previous) owners, admins > oder members only. > > The problem is that a single <iq/> has atomicity guarantees, and a client can achieve much the same thing (without the atomicity) by just sending multiple <iq/>s at once. The difference is very slight to the client, but makes a huge difference at the server end. On reading, it doesn't make much difference, but unless it works everywhere there's no advantage either. Dave.
