On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:28:55AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Robin Redeker wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Some days ago I had a mail discussion on the jdev@ mailing list > > about messages to unsubscribed contacts and contacts in general. > > Tomasz said that messages should generally go to the bare JID instead of > > the full JID, and that the local routing is up to the server. > > [.snip.] > > Please also note that the term 'chat session' in that paragraph is quite > > undefined, or at least it's meaning is a bit fuzzy to me. > > At its simplest, I think this is a chat session: > [.interesting examples snipped.]
Thanks for the examples, that was what I thought was the other option. > > The sharing of directed presence gives both parties more knowledge about > availability, but I think it should be initiated by the recipient (and > subject to client prompt on a per-session basis, or configuration in the > client to auto-share directed presence). > > > And is somewhere described how full JIDs and <thread> play together? If at > > all? > > http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0201.html Thanks :) > > If routing is up to the local server side, makes it sense to reveal > > resources at all? Wasn't there a progress towards randomized resources? > > http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3920bis-04.html#bind-servergen Nice :) [.snip.] > > IMHO, threads are *not* required to have a chat session. Ok. > > But before I can implement anything resembling 'chat sessions' that > > term must be more explictly defined. > > See above for an example. I can easily write a formal definition too. Well, that example was what I imagined what a 'chat session' would be. I don't know how important this is for others, I guess most client developers don't have a problem with this. > > Of course, If I don't have to keep track of the resources, that would > > _greatly_ simplify everything for me. Just sending to the bare JID and > > leaving the rest up to <thread> and the contacts routing settings > > would make enormous sense to me. > > Sending every message to the bare JID is not the custom. Ok. > > Back to section 5.1.1, the sections somehow contradicts the section > > 8.3.1.1 (Message): > > > > For a message stanza of type "chat", "error", "groupchat", or > > "normal", the server SHOULD deliver the stanza to the > > highest-priority available resource. > > > > That 'feature' only makes sense if at least the initial message goes to > > a bare JID. But if it is routed to a resource by the server and I have > > no knowledge about the presence of that resource (eg. if I'm not > > subscribed), where should the next message go to, to the full JID I > > received a reply from? > > You should keep sending to the bare JID until you receive a reply from a > full JID, then start sending to the full JID. Ok, that makes much sense with the behaviour described in the URL you posted below. > > > Will my messages, if that contacts resource goes > > offline, be dropped without my knowledge? > > No, they will probably go to offline storage, because of this: > > http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-04.html#rules-fulljid-availnomatch > > I agree that these customary practices are not spelled out very well, so > I will fix that in the next version of rfc3921bis. I guess that would be a nice addition. Thanks! Robin -- Robin Redeker | Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.deliantra.net http://www.ta-sa.org/ |
