On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 13:53 -0500, Robert Joly wrote: > > Hi, > > The openfire integration that we are doing for sipXecs 4.2 > > adds support for multi-user chatrooms. The chatroom > > component within openfire is accessible as a subdomain of the > > server's XMPP domain. So, as an example, if openfire is > > configured with XMPP domain example.com then the chatrooms on > > that server will be addressable using a subdomain of the form > > <somesubdomainame>.example.com. I'm proposing that we > > hardcode the <somesubdomain> part to something short and > > simple like 'room'. Keeping with our example, this would > > mean that multi-user chats would be at room.example.com. > > > > [UPDATE] By default, openfire assigns sub-domain 'conference' to the > multi-user chats. It turns out that providing a subdomain named 'room' > instead of 'conference' is not a trivial task. After implementing the > change to use 'room' instead of 'conference' a series of bugs linked to > that change started cropping up: XX-6913, XX-6943 and XX-6948. After a > few unfruitful attempts to fix those, I'm questioning the value/effort > ratio of changing the 'conference' subdomain name to 'room'. Surely, > 'room' is nicer because it is shorter than 'conference' but given that > this information is pre-populated in clients like pidgin and the fact > that I do not have an non-kludgy fix for said bugs, I'm very much > inclined to leave things the way openfire has them by default. That is > to say, stick with the default 'conference' subdomain and be done with > it. Any objections?
None at all: 'conference' is fine. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
