> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [JDEV] Promiscuous presence for user communities > (with patch)
> First, it is already possible to do "promiscuous presence" in jabberd > 1.4.2 using the "presence bcc" markup in the jabber.xml configuration > file -- see the release notes. This feature pipes all the > presence off > to another JID (usually a component), which can provide an API for > sending presence out to whomever you please. It was much easier to write this as a patch to Jabber, as all the structures and code were already there to support it, and can inject/modify the stream wherever needed. It's a relatively minor tweak on how the server handles 'available'. > Second, you can't just add new presence types to the > protocol. :-) This > protocol is now in IETF Last Call. Just as you can't add a new HTTP > method because you think PUT and GET are not enough, you > can't add new > presence types willy-nilly. > > I agree with you that community building might require something like > this, and putting that under the control of the user is good. But I > don't think that a new presence type is the best way to make > that happen. It could also be implemented as an optional namespace under <presence>, e.g., the client could send <presence type="available"><promiscuous xmlns="..."/>...</presence> and capable servers would use it and incapable servers would ignore it and just treat it as a normal 'available' presence. That wouldn't modify the protocol afaik. I figured it would make more sense as a type due to the way 'invisible' had been implemented as a type instead of making it a tag under a type="unavailable". Would the promiscuous tag under presence as mentioned be better? _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
