PDA

View Full Version : [jdev] conversing with multiple users, but not MUC


Toby Schaffer
06-19-2008, 12:19 AM
I'm trying to get Jabber going at my company for IM and chat, and so far
it's working ok. But one major roadblock is the lack of the ability to
have an n-way conversation (eg, I want to talk to two coworkers, and
only those two, and have all three of us see all the replies) without
using a chat room. It appears XEP-0033 (extended stanza addressing)
describes a way to do this with email-style cc and bcc. However, I can't
find any server - or even a client - which supports this. How do people
hold n-way conversations now? I was told in one forum that everyone just
uses MUC, but it seems very awkward to have to create or modify a room
to have a conversation with a given set of multiple recipients. Am I
missing something obvious? Thanks.

--
Toby Schaffer


_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Nathan Fritz
06-19-2008, 08:19 AM
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 interface
of a full-on MUC room. This is one of the disadvantages of XMPP not being
tightly integegrated with a service (anyone can run XMPP in whatever way
they want), so it seems to me that there needs to be a proceedural XEP and
maybe some service discovery for default place on the server to make
throw-away MUC rooms so that the client doesn't have to be configured for a
particular MUC component and doesn't have to assume either.

In short, yes, MUC is the way to do it, and that's what it's there to
partially serve. There just needs to be a way for clients to distinguish
formal rooms with informal ones, and I think your feature request would be
handled.

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Toby Schaffer <jts (AT) adc (DOT) idt.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to get Jabber going at my company for IM and chat, and so far
> it's working ok. But one major roadblock is the lack of the ability to
> have an n-way conversation (eg, I want to talk to two coworkers, and
> only those two, and have all three of us see all the replies) without
> using a chat room. It appears XEP-0033 (extended stanza addressing)
> describes a way to do this with email-style cc and bcc. However, I can't
> find any server - or even a client - which supports this. How do people
> hold n-way conversations now? I was told in one forum that everyone just
> uses MUC, but it seems very awkward to have to create or modify a room
> to have a conversation with a given set of multiple recipients. Am I
> missing something obvious? Thanks.
>
> --
> Toby Schaffer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JDev mailing list
> FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
> Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
> Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
> _______________________________________________
>

_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Tomasz Sterna
06-19-2008, 10:49 AM
Dnia 2008-06-18, śro o godzinie 23:18 -0700, Nathan Fritz pisze:
> Really, this is a client implementation issue. [...]

Really?

- What if there is no MUC server available in your server disco?
- What if there is no MUC server available (you're on a closed network)?
- What if there is no server available at all (you're on an ad-hoc
network using XEP-0174: Link-Local Messaging)?


--
/\_./o__ Tomasz Sterna
(/^/(_^^' http://www.xiaoka.com/
._.(_.)_ im:smoku (AT) xiaoka (DOT) com

_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Sander Devrieze
06-19-2008, 11:50 AM
2008/6/19 Tomasz Sterna <tomek (AT) xiaoka (DOT) com>:
> Dnia 2008-06-18, ¶ro 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 server available (you're on a closed network)?

Ask your admin for a MUC service

> - What if there is no server available at all (you're on an ad-hoc
> network using XEP-0174: Link-Local Messaging)?

Do people who use this need MUC?

--
Mvg, Sander Devrieze.
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Tomasz Sterna
06-19-2008, 12:14 PM
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:smoku (AT) xiaoka (DOT) com

_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Nathan Fritz
06-19-2008, 12:26 PM
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.

- What if there is no MUC server available (you're on a closed network)?


It's a requirement.

- What if there is no server available at all (you're on an ad-hoc
> network using XEP-0174: Link-Local Messaging)?


Uh, good point.

_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Norman Rasmussen
06-19-2008, 12:40 PM
I think http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/private-muc.html is what you
guys are looking for.

- Norman Rasmussen
- Email: norman (AT) rasmussen (DOT) co.za
- Home page: http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Nathan Fritz <nathanfritz (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> - What if there is no MUC server available (you're on a closed network)?
>
>
> It's a requirement.
>
> - What if there is no server available at all (you're on an ad-hoc
>> network using XEP-0174: Link-Local Messaging)?
>
>
> Uh, good point.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JDev mailing list
> FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
> Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
> Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
> _______________________________________________
>
>

_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Sander Devrieze
06-19-2008, 01:24 PM
2008/6/19 Tomasz Sterna <tomek (AT) xiaoka (DOT) com>:
> 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".

With "this" I was referring to Link Local Messaging...does Skypy uses this?

--
Mvg, Sander Devrieze.
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Jehan
06-19-2008, 02:15 PM
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 instance, or whether you want to show your jid, or else being anonymous, etc.

In a basic multi-user discussion, people just want to speak with several people. They don't want to be proposed to have another nickname than the one they already have, they don't care about being anonymous (because anyway in such case, they discuss about known people, even probably people in their roster) and they don't want to have to find a server which propose such a muc service (because they don't understand what means muc, and what is a server).

For instance I may just be discussing with a friend, and I see another common friend connecting. So I say "eh let's invite Jo to speak with us", I click the button "invite someone in this discussion", and now he simply can speak with us.

So of course, you could do this with a client implementation using muc: it would check on your local server whether a muc service exists, create a private muc, don't ask to hide your jid or to choose a nickname, don't ask a room title, make it private, etc. But I think this is complicated compared to a system of multi-recipient. You simply send a message with several recipients. And a conversation <thread> element (cf. 4.5 of rfc3921) is welcome to follow this specific discussion (enabling then to distinguish several discussions opened with the same user for instance).

So it would give something like:

<message
to='romeo@example.net/orchard,juliet@example.com/balcony'
from='me@example.org'
type='chat'
xml:lang='en'>
<body>Hello Romeo, hello Juliet. How are you?</body>
<thread>e0ffe42b28561960c6b12b944a092794b9683a38</thread>
</message>


I would say that if you don't specify a thread, then this would be only a message sent to several people, but independently (they won't know all the recipients).
What do you think of this?

Jehan

Jehan
06-19-2008, 02:23 PM
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:


<message
to='romeo@example.net/orchard'
cc='juliet@example.com/balcony'
from='me@example.org'
type='chat'
xml:lang='en'>
<body>Hello Romeo, hello Juliet. How are you?</body>
<thread>e0ffe42b28561960c6b12b944a092794b9683a38</thread>
</message>


And when Romeo answer to this, his client would generate:



<message
from='romeo@example.net/orchard'
to='juliet@example.com/balcony,me@example.org'
type='chat'
xml:lang='en'>
<body>Hej all! I'm fine me. What about you too?</body>
<thread>e0ffe42b28561960c6b12b944a092794b9683a38</thread>
</message>

Jeff McAdams
06-19-2008, 02:33 PM
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 nickname
> for instance, or whether you want to show your jid, or else being
> anonymous, etc.

Except that pretty much all of that is a matter of client implementation.

The spec for MUC specifically envisioned potentially using it as a
seamless transition from a one-on-one discussion to a multi-way discussion.

The scenario is that a one-on-one discussion is taking place and the
users decide that they want to add a third person. So one of the people
invites a third person into the chat.

The client, and this can be completely behind the scenes, needs to go
create a MUC, potentially send history to it, then send invites to the
other two users with a <continue/> element.

This is all described in section 7.6 of
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html

This protocol capability gives clients all the tools they need to
seamlessly convert a one-on-one to a quick ad-hoc sort of MUC chat with
multiple people. The user need not be even aware that MUC is being used
to do it.
--
Jeff McAdams
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin


_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIWlGuXkUmzpmSrfwRAkzKAJ9yXoxOFRx4QKadlKvjpu U5IwJ1rwCfblJp
yeSUlxsE6zkX3aYXVmBvnOw=
=cLGF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jonathan Dickinson
06-19-2008, 04:09 PM
I think we are all chasing things around in circles here.

o This is all supported by XEP-0033<http://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='multicast (AT) example (DOT) org'
from='sniper5 (AT) example (DOT) org/hotAirBaloon'
type='chat'
xml:lang='en'>

<addresses xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/address'>
<address type='cc' jid='romeo (AT) example (DOT) net/orchard' desc='Romeo'/>
<address type='cc' jid='juliet (AT) example (DOT) net/balcony' desc='Juliet'/>
</addresses>

<body>I know you two are misbehaving.</body>
<thread>e0ffe42b28561960c6b12b944a092794b9683a38</thread>
</message>
------------------------------

PSA and JH made a really good job of that spec for one reason in particular: multicast.example.org is a component; no need to alter any client/server code and you could make this yourself today with any XMPP component library.

Do we need to define another standard? No. Do we, the developers, have to sit down and look at our code tonight? Yes.

Toby, today there is no support on the clients/servers (and possible components). It is something the XMPP community needs to look at, and I definitely will, but I don't know when you can expect wide-spread results. Your best bet would be to:

1. Wait for a server/component team to implement this feature and upgrade
2. Wait for a client team to implement this feature and recommend it to your clients

The cocinnella chaps seem pretty good at making fast changes: maybe something for them to look at? They already have the whiteboard which has a private conference-loving implemenation - maybe someone could have a look at that code (sorry, not much use at C++ myself)?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdev-bounces (AT) jabber (DOT) org [mailto:jdev-bounces (AT) jabber (DOT) org] On
> Behalf Of Jeff McAdams
> Sent: 19 June 2008 02:32 PM
> To: Jabber/XMPP software development list
> Subject: Re: [jdev] conversing with multiple users, but not MUC
>
> 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
> nickname
> > for instance, or whether you want to show your jid, or else being
> > anonymous, etc.
>
> Except that pretty much all of that is a matter of client
> implementation.
>
> The spec for MUC specifically envisioned potentially using it as a
> seamless transition from a one-on-one discussion to a multi-way
> discussion.
>
> The scenario is that a one-on-one discussion is taking place and the
> users decide that they want to add a third person. So one of the
> people invites a third person into the chat.
>
> The client, and this can be completely behind the scenes, needs to go
> create a MUC, potentially send history to it, then send invites to the
> other two users with a <continue/> element.
>
> This is all described in section 7.6 of
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html
>
> This protocol capability gives clients all the tools they need to
> seamlessly convert a one-on-one to a quick ad-hoc sort of MUC chat with
> multiple people. The user need not be even aware that MUC is being
> used to do it.
> --
> Jeff McAdams
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -- Benjamin Franklin

_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Jonathan Dickinson
06-19-2008, 04:11 PM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdev-bounces (AT) jabber (DOT) org [mailto:jdev-bounces (AT) jabber (DOT) org] 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 spec for one reason in
> particular: multicast.example.org is a component; no need to alter any
> client/server code and you could make this yourself today with any XMPP
> component library.

Correction: no need to alter any server code.

>
> ...
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Peter Saint-Andre
06-19-2008, 04:14 PM
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 Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Jehan
06-19-2008, 04:27 PM
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!).

Sander Devrieze
06-19-2008, 05:39 PM
2008/6/19 Jonathan Dickinson <jonathanD (AT) k2 (DOT) com>:
> I think we are all chasing things around in circles here.
>
> o This is all supported by XEP-0033<http://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='multicast (AT) example (DOT) org'
> from='sniper5 (AT) example (DOT) org/hotAirBaloon'
> type='chat'
> xml:lang='en'>
>
> <addresses xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/address'>
> <address type='cc' jid='romeo (AT) example (DOT) net/orchard' desc='Romeo'/>
> <address type='cc' jid='juliet (AT) example (DOT) net/balcony' desc='Juliet'/>
> </addresses>
>
> <body>I know you two are misbehaving.</body>
> <thread>e0ffe42b28561960c6b12b944a092794b9683a38</thread>
> </message>
> ------------------------------
>
> PSA and JH made a really good job of that spec for one reason in particular: multicast.example.org is a component; no need to alter any client/server code and you could make this yourself today with any XMPP component library.
>
> Do we need to define another standard? No. Do we, the developers, have to sit down and look at our code tonight? Yes.
>
> Toby, today there is no support on the clients/servers (and possible components). It is something the XMPP community needs to look at, and I definitely will, but I don't know when you can expect wide-spread results. Your best bet would be to:
>
> 1. Wait for a server/component team to implement this feature and upgrade
> 2. Wait for a client team to implement this feature and recommend it to your clients
>
> The cocinnella chaps seem pretty good at making fast changes: maybe something for them to look at? They already have the whiteboard which has a private conference-loving implemenation - maybe someone could have a look at that code (sorry, not much use at C++ myself)?

Mats does not has much time these days. btw: Coccinella is Tcl/Tk; not C++

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jdev-bounces (AT) jabber (DOT) org [mailto:jdev-bounces (AT) jabber (DOT) org] On
>> Behalf Of Jeff McAdams
>> Sent: 19 June 2008 02:32 PM
>> To: Jabber/XMPP software development list
>> Subject: Re: [jdev] conversing with multiple users, but not MUC
>>
>> 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
>> nickname
>> > for instance, or whether you want to show your jid, or else being
>> > anonymous, etc.
>>
>> Except that pretty much all of that is a matter of client
>> implementation.
>>
>> The spec for MUC specifically envisioned potentially using it as a
>> seamless transition from a one-on-one discussion to a multi-way
>> discussion.
>>
>> The scenario is that a one-on-one discussion is taking place and the
>> users decide that they want to add a third person. So one of the
>> people invites a third person into the chat.
>>
>> The client, and this can be completely behind the scenes, needs to go
>> create a MUC, potentially send history to it, then send invites to the
>> other two users with a <continue/> element.
>>
>> This is all described in section 7.6 of
>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html
>>
>> This protocol capability gives clients all the tools they need to
>> seamlessly convert a one-on-one to a quick ad-hoc sort of MUC chat with
>> multiple people. The user need not be even aware that MUC is being
>> used to do it.
>> --
>> Jeff McAdams
>> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
>> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>> -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> _______________________________________________
> JDev mailing list
> FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
> Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
> Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
> _______________________________________________
>
>



--
Mvg, Sander Devrieze.
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Peter Saint-Andre
06-19-2008, 07:12 PM
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 the
tools you need to build the applications you want to build. But somehow
people keep thinking up new features we might need...

/psa


_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Jehan
06-19-2008, 08:48 PM
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 own, but I guess this applies also to many other people: we know a small subset of XMPP, so obviously we try to build from it what we would really like or prefer (compared to what we know). And then we discover something similar or close exists.

I would love to know all the XEP, or better working with XMPP (for now, I just get interested in it during my leisure time, which is small). And I assure you that I often search among all the XEPs for something I need, but this is not always easy. :-)

Peter Saint-Andre
06-19-2008, 09:33 PM
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 you really blame us? I will speak for my own, but I guess
> this applies also to many other people: we know a small subset of XMPP,
> so obviously we try to build from it what we would really like or prefer
> (compared to what we know). And then we discover something similar or
> close exists.
>
> I would love to know all the XEP, or better working with XMPP (for now,
> I just get interested in it during my leisure time, which is small). And
> I assure you that I often search among all the XEPs for something I
> need, but this is not always easy. :-)

Sure, that's why people post to this list and we point them in the right
direction. :)

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Toby Schaffer
07-01-2008, 04:19 PM
I hope nobody minds me bringing up an older thread... Responding to
Nathan's original reply
<http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2008-June/026983.html> that this
should be handled as a MUC which the client could make transparent, I'm
hoping for something that requires no interaction from the user, not
even having to accept a MUC invitation. Ideally, the message would
simply appear on the recipients' screens as if they were IM'd
individually (except for the other recipients' JIDs, of course). Again,
it seems that XEP-0033 addresses all this, and I'm surprised there are
no implementations.

At my remote design center (exclusively Linux) we've been using MIT's
Zephyr system successfully, but I'd like to get the entire company on a
platform-independent (ie, Windows + Linux) system. XMPP seems like a
natural choice. I've installed jabberd14 and pidgin here, and that's
going ok, but the need to simply and quickly have an IM conversation
with more than one person arises often. The lack of this capability is
an impediment to getting Jabber accepted and used company-wide.

So, without knowing the list protocol on "help wanted" announcements, is
anyone interested in contracting to write a jabberd14-compatible
XEP-0033 component? Getting Jabber going isn't really in my job
description, so I doubt my manager'd approve spending the amount of time
it'd take me to get up to speed. However, we probably have a little
money to spend, so please contact me if you're both willing and able to
take this on with an estimate of the time required and what you'd
charge. I'm pretty sure we'd be willing to GPL the results, if that
provides incentive. (I realize client support will be needed as well,
but this is one step at a time...)

Thanks,

Jonathan Dickinson wrote:
> I think we are all chasing things around in circles here.
>
> o This is all supported by XEP-0033<http://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='multicast (AT) example (DOT) org'
> from='sniper5 (AT) example (DOT) org/hotAirBaloon'
> type='chat'
> xml:lang='en'>
>
> <addresses xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/address'>
> <address type='cc' jid='romeo (AT) example (DOT) net/orchard' desc='Romeo'/>
> <address type='cc' jid='juliet (AT) example (DOT) net/balcony' desc='Juliet'/>
> </addresses>
>
> <body>I know you two are misbehaving.</body>
> <thread>e0ffe42b28561960c6b12b944a092794b9683a38</thread>
> </message>
> ------------------------------
>
> PSA and JH made a really good job of that spec for one reason in particular: multicast.example.org is a component; no need to alter any client/server code and you could make this yourself today with any XMPP component library.
>
> Do we need to define another standard? No. Do we, the developers, have to sit down and look at our code tonight? Yes.
>
> Toby, today there is no support on the clients/servers (and possible components). It is something the XMPP community needs to look at, and I definitely will, but I don't know when you can expect wide-spread results. Your best bet would be to:
>
> 1. Wait for a server/component team to implement this feature and upgrade
> 2. Wait for a client team to implement this feature and recommend it to your clients
>
> The cocinnella chaps seem pretty good at making fast changes: maybe something for them to look at? They already have the whiteboard which has a private conference-loving implemenation - maybe someone could have a look at that code (sorry, not much use at C++ myself)?
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jdev-bounces (AT) jabber (DOT) org [mailto:jdev-bounces (AT) jabber (DOT) org] On
>> Behalf Of Jeff McAdams
>> Sent: 19 June 2008 02:32 PM
>> To: Jabber/XMPP software development list
>> Subject: Re: [jdev] conversing with multiple users, but not MUC
>>
>> 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
>>>
>> nickname
>>
>>> for instance, or whether you want to show your jid, or else being
>>> anonymous, etc.
>>>
>> Except that pretty much all of that is a matter of client
>> implementation.
>>
>> The spec for MUC specifically envisioned potentially using it as a
>> seamless transition from a one-on-one discussion to a multi-way
>> discussion.
>>
>> The scenario is that a one-on-one discussion is taking place and the
>> users decide that they want to add a third person. So one of the
>> people invites a third person into the chat.
>>
>> The client, and this can be completely behind the scenes, needs to go
>> create a MUC, potentially send history to it, then send invites to the
>> other two users with a <continue/> element.
>>
>> This is all described in section 7.6 of
>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html
>>
>> This protocol capability gives clients all the tools they need to
>> seamlessly convert a one-on-one to a quick ad-hoc sort of MUC chat with
>> multiple people. The user need not be even aware that MUC is being
>> used to do it.
>> --
>> Jeff McAdams
>> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
>> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>> -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JDev mailing list
> FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
> Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
> Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>

--
Toby Schaffer email: toby_schaffer (AT) idt (DOT) com
CAD Engineer phone: 678-775-2969
Integrated Device Technology, Inc.
11555 Medlock Bridge Rd. Suite #200 Duluth, GA 30097

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private and
confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments
thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete
the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.


_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Jeff McAdams
07-01-2008, 04:29 PM
Toby Schaffer wrote:
> I hope nobody minds me bringing up an older thread... Responding to
> Nathan's original reply
> <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2008-June/026983.html> that this
> should be handled as a MUC which the client could make transparent, I'm
> hoping for something that requires no interaction from the user, not
> even having to accept a MUC invitation.

Again, its quite possible for a client to do this. The protocol
(particularly with the <continue/> element) has the necessary bits and
parts to let the client know that it should be a seamless
transition...both on the initiating, and receiving side.

This is all client implementation issue.

> Ideally, the message would
> simply appear on the recipients' screens as if they were IM'd
> individually (except for the other recipients' JIDs, of course). Again,
> it seems that XEP-0033 addresses all this, and I'm surprised there are
> no implementations.

You are correct, though, in that you could use XEP-0033 capabilities to
do this as well...though I suspect you're going to find a lot more
interoperability corner cases when working with other clients that don't
support XEP-0033.

At least, with the MUC case, if you're interacting with a client that
doesn't provide that seamless user experience, it will "gracefully" fall
back to giving a MUC invite to the user to confirm. If you're
interacting with a client that doesn't support XEP-0033, your multi-way
flow of messages isn't going to work the way I think you want/expect it
to. (ie, you send a XEP-0033 message to two people; one of them, with a
non-XEP-0033 client, responds, and the message only comes to you, and
not also to the other user...correct me if I'm wrong on this).

I suspect this is why you haven't seen wide adoption of XEP-0033 as its
usefulness is largely dependent on other clients implementing it as
well...its the age-old bootstrapping problem.
--
Jeff McAdams
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin


_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIaj7pXkUmzpmSrfwRAvOvAJ4nS5bJpT2H2/Z6v2ZCyJzl+AJXTQCeO2xf
A5x4kG8efoOLRcRo2TYktNw=
=8v0a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Toby Schaffer
07-01-2008, 04:51 PM
That's a good point about dealing with non-XEP-0033 clients. But from my
point-of-view I'm only concerned with getting /a/ solution - if that
means requiring users here to use only pidgin (or whatever client) to
get full benefit, that's ok. Graceful interaction with non-XEP-0033
clients, while desirable, isn't a priority, I just need to be able to
say "here's a way to get the job done".

I'm not familiar enough with XMPP to know exactly what's possible purely
on the client side and what requires a server component, so thanks for
the advice. Maybe I need to be soliciting work on the pidgin
developers' list instead... :)

Thanks,

Jeff McAdams wrote:
> Toby Schaffer wrote:
>
>> I hope nobody minds me bringing up an older thread... Responding to
>> Nathan's original reply
>> <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2008-June/026983.html> that this
>> should be handled as a MUC which the client could make transparent, I'm
>> hoping for something that requires no interaction from the user, not
>> even having to accept a MUC invitation.
>>
>
> Again, its quite possible for a client to do this. The protocol
> (particularly with the <continue/> element) has the necessary bits and
> parts to let the client know that it should be a seamless
> transition...both on the initiating, and receiving side.
>
> This is all client implementation issue.
>
>
>> Ideally, the message would
>> simply appear on the recipients' screens as if they were IM'd
>> individually (except for the other recipients' JIDs, of course). Again,
>> it seems that XEP-0033 addresses all this, and I'm surprised there are
>> no implementations.
>>
>
> You are correct, though, in that you could use XEP-0033 capabilities to
> do this as well...though I suspect you're going to find a lot more
> interoperability corner cases when working with other clients that don't
> support XEP-0033.
>
> At least, with the MUC case, if you're interacting with a client that
> doesn't provide that seamless user experience, it will "gracefully" fall
> back to giving a MUC invite to the user to confirm. If you're
> interacting with a client that doesn't support XEP-0033, your multi-way
> flow of messages isn't going to work the way I think you want/expect it
> to. (ie, you send a XEP-0033 message to two people; one of them, with a
> non-XEP-0033 client, responds, and the message only comes to you, and
> not also to the other user...correct me if I'm wrong on this).
>
> I suspect this is why you haven't seen wide adoption of XEP-0033 as its
> usefulness is largely dependent on other clients implementing it as
> well...its the age-old bootstrapping problem.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> JDev mailing list
> FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
> Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
> Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
> _______________________________________________
>

--
Toby Schaffer email: toby_schaffer (AT) idt (DOT) com
CAD Engineer phone: 678-775-2969
Integrated Device Technology, Inc.
11555 Medlock Bridge Rd. Suite #200 Duluth, GA 30097

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private and
confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments
thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete
the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.


_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

Jonathan Schleifer
07-01-2008, 09:52 PM
Gajim SVN (and the soon-coming 0.12 release) allows converting a chat
to a groupchat. It's not that seamless atm, but we're working on that.
This works just fine together with ejabberd 2.x.

--
Jonathan

_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe (AT) jabber (DOT) org
_______________________________________________

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIcBAEBAwAGBQJIaoqKAAoJEMtRg9d5cXHkaHwP/AhH0rYGueWbc0oCbOblWAZR
kSAAC3d+uLEnexuSPa8JLOgvNa4b6WsLnTurYrvrQk0YQ0ifDo swdILZ75XXjSzT
4yh0YsxkYnQfwk6Oa5xRsRUN0/JPjprol/SeDKqje91abm6i9BcWRrdht19giQ7t
z3WUvKG6vNojKLtT2KgDzPegbscO2/7BDgepVDu24M22erS+dbi0eA00kLIswjLj
nY2/cWa8klQa4Rd78ZMt/o7fDYHH78Se0HDU+ABPWTZTvaaSHGowcL89fJU9vdxn
MvQLviw7/LFC51JdOF+lKA/+KFpv4F+mHZjtOI2dADFC/TwF3vG+Q/yw7L19oupw
V6m/Ebfc2/Fx02eVlNez8PuajYZWTORWQc12hpJNViblvgE9FIxZe6HbOiEh oEdA
mLZ5ipuXDxpnHfmH2x1CLWo2IdNvw5UrEMaOyfhcxKIEtsR/GmOF/sbqDRwZoZQe
FC9IssDdGiQ5QdYvxBHkZ/kQabypOAvnimsK3Vu17twKFl+YNG+Ki/RWdFdPRByG
OrtGEphhSeFVW3jMl5MeQDSBJe3sbH5hgD3wHsu8tPi+7GSiAl wAPkphPdskSG5M
Y5qnOcIwOZiD6Q+t9hTr0dfqaKlRowep/y8SJNjXMTaa3s8ibfF81JRit5a3U2Ki
ce/NCDUFLMQNs37T8RLl
=lsBb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----