Re: Questions...
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 04:19:06PM +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote: > On 2016-04-14, 10:26 GMT, Adrian Reber wrote: > > In the configuration I am running jabberd2 on Fedora I did not > > have many (maybe any) upgrading the last few versions. EPEL-7 > > would be an upgrade from 2.3.2 to 2.3.6. It probably depends > > on the installation and which backends are used if the > > upgrade. Looking at > > > > https://github.com/jabberd2/jabberd2/blob/master/NEWS > > > > it seems upgrading from 2.3.4 to 2.3.5 can require database > > changes. Not sure how to handle this. But we can try. > > # mod_verify requires CREATE TABLE "verify" in DB. Make sure > # you created it before enabling the module in sm.xml. > > However, the mod_verify is new in 2.3.5, so we don't have to > care about its migration, right? Or what am I missing? Ah, now that you say so. I never read it that way. But true. Then it is probably not more than a 'git merge master' to get the latest jabberd2 on EPEL-7. If you want you can update it for EPEL-7. Adrian
Re: Questions...
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:49:30AM +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote: > On 2016-04-14, 06:27 GMT, Adrian Reber wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:19:45AM -0700, John Oliver wrote: > >> 1) Is this project the 'jabberd' that's available in EPEL? > > > > I can answer that one. jabberd in EPEL is jabberd2. As it is EPEL it > > will not see as many updates as the upstream package > > I agree that I would keep EPEL-6 (or even EPEL-5) untouched just > with possible security patches, but it seems to me that rebase > in EPEL-7 would not be the worst idea. What do you think? I am > willing to help with patching. > > Do we know what is the upgrade story? Does the latest jabberd2 > just takes over the original configuration? In the configuration I am running jabberd2 on Fedora I did not have many (maybe any) upgrading the last few versions. EPEL-7 would be an upgrade from 2.3.2 to 2.3.6. It probably depends on the installation and which backends are used if the upgrade. Looking at https://github.com/jabberd2/jabberd2/blob/master/NEWS it seems upgrading from 2.3.4 to 2.3.5 can require database changes. Not sure how to handle this. But we can try. Adrian
Re: Questions...
On 2016-04-14, 06:27 GMT, Adrian Reber wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:19:45AM -0700, John Oliver wrote: >> 1) Is this project the 'jabberd' that's available in EPEL? > > I can answer that one. jabberd in EPEL is jabberd2. As it is EPEL it > will not see as many updates as the upstream package I agree that I would keep EPEL-6 (or even EPEL-5) untouched just with possible security patches, but it seems to me that rebase in EPEL-7 would not be the worst idea. What do you think? I am willing to help with patching. Do we know what is the upgrade story? Does the latest jabberd2 just takes over the original configuration? Best, Matěj -- https://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, Jabber: mc...@ceplovi.cz GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC SCSI is *not* magic. There are *fundamental* *technical* reasons why you have to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain every now and then. -- John F. Woods
Re: Questions...
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:19:45AM -0700, John Oliver wrote: > 1) Is this project the 'jabberd' that's available in EPEL? I can answer that one. jabberd in EPEL is jabberd2. As it is EPEL it will not see as many updates as the upstream package Adrian
Re: Questions about component protocol and multi-user chat without subdomain
I always find this annotation as misleading. It tightens the current habbit of tightly binding services with servers. Yeah, that's the main thing about it that bothered me. The standards seem to encourage the use of sub-domains for naming services. The examples in XEP-0030 place each service on a sub-domain. I wonder if the standard could be updated to add some way of addressing services and components that doesn't require extra domains or sub-domains? ---BeginMessage--- Dnia 2011-01-31, pon o godzinie 23:23 -0800, Keith Jay Gillis pisze: A host that offers text-based conferencing capabilities; often but not necessarily a sub-domain of a Jabber server (e.g., conference.jabber.org). I always find this annotation as misleading. It tightens the current habbit of tightly binding services with servers. Is it possible to use mu-conference with jabberd2 without putting mu-conference on a sub-domain? It's perfectly possible to run a conference service on its own domain. It's domain name is nothing special and does not have to be a subdomain of jabber server. ie. I run my conference service and transports on a completely separate host, with only router and s2s components companion. Router to handle component protocol connections, and s2s to give the components network connectivity. I had hoped that a chat service and XMPP server could both have the same domain. But... If you want to share a single domain between different components, ie. a chat component and a session manager - it's not possible with jabberd2. This would require an application protocol level stanza routing which is not supported. In other words - router would have to inspect contents of every packet and decide which component the packet should be routed to. It is possible to do, but it's complicated and inefficient. I see from XEP-0045 that a chat service needs to have a JID to direct room queries to. Could it have a JID of confere...@example.com of example.com/conference instead of conference.example.com? Not possible. MUC encodes nicknames as resources. You need to run it on separate domain. Also, are there plans to make the jabberd2 component protocol an official extension? Kind of... Some elements of jabberd2 component protocol are on it's way to standardization. See XEP-0225 The rest is jabberd2 internal design specific and may not be that useful for other implementations. -- Tomasz Sterna Instant Messaging Consultant : Open Source Developer http://tomasz.sterna.tv/ http://www.xiaoka.com/ -- To unsubscribe send a mail to jabberd2+unsubscr...@lists.xiaoka.com ---End Message--- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Questions about component protocol and multi-user chat without subdomain
Hi Keith, I did some investigations on this topic last year. As far as I see it is not possible without rewriting the sm-component to pass some iq-stanzas to its clients. My approach was to write a component that binds to a dummy-domain and simulates a c2s-connection (e.g. the component starts a session in the designated domain) and then acts like a normal jabber-client. I managed it to do the session-stuff, but it seems that the sm does not pass IQ-stanzas to the bare JID (without ressource) to its clients, so techniques like Service-Discovery - which much heavily depends on - are not possible. Kind regards, Bernd Am 01.02.2011 08:23, schrieb Keith Jay Gillis: Hi, XEP-0045 defines a multi-user chat service as: A host that offers text-based conferencing capabilities; often but not necessarily a sub-domain of a Jabber server (e.g., conference.jabber.org). Is it possible to use mu-conference with jabberd2 without putting mu-conference on a sub-domain? Does often but not necessarily a sub-domain just meant that it could be on an entirely separate domain? I had hoped that a chat service and XMPP server could both have the same domain. I see from XEP-0045 that a chat service needs to have a JID to direct room queries to. Could it have a JID of confere...@example.com of example.com/conference instead of conference.example.com? Also, are there plans to make the jabberd2 component protocol an official extension? Thanks, Keith -- \\\||/// \\ - - // ( @ @ ) -oOo--( )--oOo--- tiggersWelt.net www.tiggerswelt.net Inhaber Bernd Holzmüller i...@tiggerswelt.net Tel: 07 11 / 550 425-90 Mönchstraße 25 Fax: 07 11 / 550 425-99 70191 Stuttgart OpenPGP/GnuPG: 0x957C378B -- To unsubscribe send a mail to jabberd2+unsubscr...@lists.xiaoka.com
Re: Questions about component protocol and multi-user chat without subdomain
Dnia 2011-01-31, pon o godzinie 23:23 -0800, Keith Jay Gillis pisze: A host that offers text-based conferencing capabilities; often but not necessarily a sub-domain of a Jabber server (e.g., conference.jabber.org). I always find this annotation as misleading. It tightens the current habbit of tightly binding services with servers. Is it possible to use mu-conference with jabberd2 without putting mu-conference on a sub-domain? It's perfectly possible to run a conference service on its own domain. It's domain name is nothing special and does not have to be a subdomain of jabber server. ie. I run my conference service and transports on a completely separate host, with only router and s2s components companion. Router to handle component protocol connections, and s2s to give the components network connectivity. I had hoped that a chat service and XMPP server could both have the same domain. But... If you want to share a single domain between different components, ie. a chat component and a session manager - it's not possible with jabberd2. This would require an application protocol level stanza routing which is not supported. In other words - router would have to inspect contents of every packet and decide which component the packet should be routed to. It is possible to do, but it's complicated and inefficient. I see from XEP-0045 that a chat service needs to have a JID to direct room queries to. Could it have a JID of confere...@example.com of example.com/conference instead of conference.example.com? Not possible. MUC encodes nicknames as resources. You need to run it on separate domain. Also, are there plans to make the jabberd2 component protocol an official extension? Kind of... Some elements of jabberd2 component protocol are on it's way to standardization. See XEP-0225 The rest is jabberd2 internal design specific and may not be that useful for other implementations. -- Tomasz Sterna Instant Messaging Consultant : Open Source Developer http://tomasz.sterna.tv/ http://www.xiaoka.com/ -- To unsubscribe send a mail to jabberd2+unsubscr...@lists.xiaoka.com
