> Even if it's not the best place for asking, I wanted to ask if you
> know an open source software dedicated to the LAN chat. Because even
> if iChat, Trillian & other can do it, LAN chat is a bit different from
> IM. For example, it doesn't require a (server) account - it's
> something important
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 07:40 am, JD Conley wrote:
> > Justin, does the library also find the correct dns servers on all
>
> systems?
>
> As far as I know you have to give it a DNS server. (I did some testing
> for Justin.)
Right, this is currently left out. I was planning for the layers a
Hi,
Thanks for all this comments
> >I was thinking of using multicast (through a lib since I'm not a good
> >network programmer), but do you think using zeroconf will be better ?
> >Isn't multicast is suitted to a lan chat ? (a lot of users in the same
> >room, it seems to me more simple)
> What
Hi,
>Right. If you send a non-MUC enabled presence an unlocked instant room
>should be created for you if one does not exist. At least that's how I
>understand it (and how we implemented it as well).
Since I am sending always a MUC-free , I suppose the "bug" is
that "some" unlocked instant rooms
>But I see that's not 100% (or even 50%?) clear in the spec, so I'll
>clarify that in the next version.
Great thanks.
hw
--
Dr. Heiner Wolf
bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
http://www.bluehands.de/people/hw
+49 (0721) 16108 75
--
Jabber enabled Virtual Presence on the Web: www.lluna.de
Open So
Heiner Wolf wrote:
I was thinking that MUC is backward compatible to GroupChat. If I send a
without any mentioning of MUC, then I should get a room
which is not locked until it is configured.
You are right JEP-0045 tells me in "9.1.2 Creating an Instant Room", for
an instant room I must send
> My goal is very simple: send a to create an open room
where
> everyone can join.
>
> Maybe the fact that is usally works is a bug.
It sounds like it to me.
>
> I was thinking that MUC is backward compatible to GroupChat. If I send
a
> without any mentioning of MUC, then I should get a room
My goal is very simple: send a to create an open room where
everyone can join.
Maybe the fact that is usally works is a bug.
I was thinking that MUC is backward compatible to GroupChat. If I send a
without any mentioning of MUC, then I should get a room
which is not locked until it is configur
> >>> Do I have to comfigure the room after the initial ?
> >>Yup according to the MUC spec.
>
> > I'd like to avoid this.
>
> Well your only option for this would probably to modify your MUC
server so
> it doesnt require it.
We actually have a custom extension in our MUC server implementation
Hi,
>Ah its probably just a bug then, the MUC component is probably thinks for
>some reason you support MUC, maybe implementing MUC will help.
Implementing MUC may help, but I can not afford the traffic. I can not spend
more than the because I join/leave many rooms. We are (again)
taling abou
Yes, this is what makes me wonder. If the room is locked then it behaves
like a MUC, not like GroupChat, although I sent only:
Ah its probably just a bug then, the MUC component is probably thinks for
some reason you support MUC, maybe implementing MUC will help.
Richard
Do I have to comfigure the room after the initial ?
Yup according to the MUC spec.
I'd like to avoid this.
Well your only option for this would probably to modify your MUC server so
it doesnt require it.
>The room wont be locked the first time you try to enter as you are
>creating
>it a
Yes, this is what makes me wonder. If the room is locked then it behaves like a
MUC, not like GroupChat, although I sent only:
hw
--
Dr. Heiner Wolf
bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
http://www.bluehands.de/people/hw
+49 (0721) 16108 75
--
Jabber enabled Virtual Presence on the Web: www.lluna
Heiner Wolf wrote:
Do I have to comfigure the room after the initial ?
Yup according to the MUC spec.
I'd like to avoid this.
So don't send the muc extension when you join the room.
Peter
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
>> Do I have to comfigure the room after the initial ?
>
>Yup according to the MUC spec.
I'd like to avoid this.
>> What would be the minimum config transaction?
>
>What you can do is either configure the room, or tell the server to use a
>default config by telling it to setup an instant room i
Do I have to comfigure the room after the initial ?
Yup according to the MUC spec.
What would be the minimum config transaction?
What you can do is either configure the room, or tell the server to use a
default config by telling it to setup an instant room instead, have a look
at the MUC
>If you are not configuring them are you then setting them up
>as instant rooms instead?
Good question. Yes I suppose they are set up as instant. There are no
pre-configured rooms. rooms.xml is empty and all are created by the first
.
hw
--
Dr. Heiner Wolf
bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
ht
Do I have to comfigure the room after the initial ?
What would be the minimum config transaction?
Any idea why it works usually and stays locked only in few cases. If a
roomm is locked then until server restart. There is no room
config/state written to the spool folder.
hw
--
Dr. Heiner Wolf
b
If you are not configuring them are you then setting them up as instant
rooms instead?
Richard
- Original Message -
From: "Heiner Wolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jabber software development list"
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:37 PM
Subject: RE: [jdev] MU-Conference returning "
Yes, the room will not be configured. But I an create other rooms, which
do not complain. Seems like a timing problem. I always do . Only some return the error.
hw
--
Dr. Heiner Wolf
bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
http://www.bluehands.de/people/hw
+49 (0721) 16108 75
--
Jabber enabled Virtual
According to spec, that error is returned when the room is locked. It
was half way created by the owner but never configured.
-JD
> I am trying to enter a chat room on an MU-Conf component at
jabberd1.4.
> The component returns 404 - Not Found Although it creates other rooms
on
> the fly without
Hi,
I am trying to enter a chat room on an MU-Conf component at jabberd1.4. The
component returns 404 - Not Found Although it creates other rooms on the fly
without problems. Some rooms return this error and the fails.
SEND:
RECV:
Not Found
An
> > FYI, windows clients shouldnt have any excuse for not supporting SRV
> > records anyway as windows has built in support for querying SRV
records,
> > it even works on windows 98 by just using the appropriate windows
2000
> > dns dll on it.
>
> thats correct. But this library is cross platform
Am 28.09.2005, 11:01 Uhr, schrieb Richard Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
FYI, windows clients shouldnt have any excuse for not supporting SRV
records anyway as windows has built in support for querying SRV records,
it even works on windows 98 by just using the appropriate windows 2000
dns dll
>I was thinking of using multicast (through a lib since I'm not a good
>network programmer), but do you think using zeroconf will be better ?
>Isn't multicast is suitted to a lan chat ? (a lot of users in the same
>room, it seems to me more simple)
What do you mean by multicast ? Zeroconf uses mul
JDNS was designed to be portable and to be able to integrate into any
existing
event-loop system. I've already integrated it into Qt without trouble,
and
I've found success on all platforms I've tried it on, including Windows
98,
Windows XP, and Linux.
Now there should be no excuse for not
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:43:23 +0200, Trejkaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Indeed. In a way, I wish it were common to do it this way instead of
hanging all the components like dongles off the main server. You
wouldn't
even need the component protocol at that point. SRV entries would
already
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 11:43:23AM +1000, Trejkaz wrote:
> >> Sometimes I think it would have been neat if nodes were part of JIDs in
> >> the first place... then each service could have been a node off the
> >> server's own JID, and everything would be happy. Well, maybe.
> >
> > For pubsub, JEP-
28 matches
Mail list logo
