Julian Missig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2002-07-12 at 17:27, Jim Seymour wrote: [snip] > > > > Reading this and the other follow-ups, it sounds like the only solution > > to this problem, for now, is that instead of sending a presence type > > invisible to the server, send it to each individual JID? Seems kind of > > abusive to the server... [snip] > > No, send the invisible packet, then send it individually to the > transports/users you want to see you as invisible.
But ... Thomas Muldowney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> had written: : I'm remembering old conversations about this now, and the problem was : that everything is just a JID and distinguishing tranports is a non : trivial task (because they could be remote). So it's best to just go : offline/invis and let the clients deal with it if they want to. : Although that really strains the transports oddly since they kill the : session and then immediately bring it back up. That's what I was thinking of when I surmised that just sending individual invisible's was the simplest solution. What am I missing? One thing which I don't understand regarding how the transports handle this: why don't they just understand what the invisible bit means and do the right thing? I'm guessing that the answer is here: Matthias Wimmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> had written: : The problem with it is, that the Jabber server doesn't send the : <presence type='invisible'/> packet to the transports. Invisibility and : transports only work if the Jabber client sends an addresses invisible : <presence/> to a transport. And the alleged response to that, paraphrased, was "server-side implied logic suxx." Eh? Far be it from me to question the wisdom of people who've been working on Jabber much longer than I, and presumably understand its logic and where y'all are going with it much better than I, but this quite frankly doesn't make sense to me. I would *think* the purpose of the transports is to "protocol convert" between Jabber and protocol X. ISTM that would include such things as "invisible." Forcing each and every client to individually deal with such things on a protocol-by-protocol basis does not make sense to me. Regards, Jim -- Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
