Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Lauri Kaila wrote:
2007/6/5, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Lauri Kaila wrote:
> I was trying to sort out Jingle initiation when someone has many
> clients (resources) online. XEP-0168 (RAP) is created for that
> situation, but does it always work so that the initiation goes where
> the receiver wants?
We had some relevant discussion starting here:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-March/014046.html
That's Interesting. If that approach was selected, would it be
possible to send a stanza to many resources simulteneously? I.e. fork
session-initiate. Then either server or initiator must deal with many
responses, which can be tricky, but maybe it would be a good trade.
One idea that Joe Hildebrand and I have been kicking around is for
messages of type "headline" to be sent to all online resources. This
would give you forking but only for that message type and not for IQs
(which are sent to full JIDs). So in order to start a Jingle session
with me where I'm not in your roster, the flow would be:
1. You send a stanza session negotiation request (XEP-0155) in a
message of type headline.
2. My server delives it to all of my online resources.
3. I reply from whichever resource I want to use right now.
4. You send a Jingle session-initiate (IQ) to that resource.
/me ponders...
Peter
both 3921 and bis :
"
headline -- The message is probably generated by an automated service
that delivers or broadcasts content (news, sports, market information,
syndicated content, etc.). No reply to the message is expected, and a
compliant client SHOULD present the message in an interface that
appropriately differentiates the message from standalone messages,
chat sessions, or groupchat sessions (e.g., by not providing the
recipient with the ability to reply).
"
Yes I know. I'm wondering if we want to specify special processing of
headline messages by servers (i.e., deliver to all available resources).
you might want to revisit this.
Also, we special case headline in context of amp w.r.t archiving and
offline storage (if client does not support amp and our server does) :
since it is typically used currently for alerts, notifications, etc by
our bots.
Right, a lot of servers do that. The RFCs don't say anything about
offline storage and I think that's as it should be. Headline messages
are discussed a bit here:
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0160.html#types
But that doesn't say anything about how they are delivered to available
resources.
Yes, my mistake ... editing error: I meant the first - archiving, not
offline storage.
Regards,
Mridul
Peter
