Hi . Is there any way (under current implementation), to get the names of persistent chatrooms created by me (earlier). wherein i want to destroy the room. Kindly let me know, how is that possible. Thanks, Kawaljeet.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 Peter Saint-Andre wrote : >Matthew Wild wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Registered with the room or with the service? Do we need to > > > differentiate between the two? If you are registered with the room then > > > you are a member, whereas nick registration has meaning across the > > > service. Compare Section 7.10 of XEP-0045, where you register with the > > > room, to registration with the service. > > > > > > > Good question... the problem I see is that all this is very > > implementation dependent. ejabberd at least doesn't allow you to > > register a nick in a room, and it isn't explicitly specified in the > > XEP (which says the server can send a data form). > > > > If you are a room member, this is visible already anyway, so I am > > edging towards registration with the whole service (unless we > > implemented both). > >Yes I think that makes sense. > > > > > The reason I believe this is needed is because the lack of it makes > > nick > > > > registration fairly useless in anonymous rooms. If someone can see > > > > that a user's nick is registered, they have a certain level of > > > > assurance that the next time they see this nick, it is the same > > > > person. Without this knowledge it may as well be someone completely > > > > different. > > > > > > > > Currently I don't believe there is any way to tell, which means that > > > > even if you register your nick on a service, it provides little > > > > benefit (unlike it would on IRC/NickServ). > > > > > > The only way to tell is by trying to register the nick yourself. And > > > that seems rather silly. :) > > > > > > > Ah yes, there is that (a method I have used before, and even > > considered adding to HAL as a hacky workaround). > >HAL knows all... > > > > I see two approaches: > > > > > > 1. If someone is registered, the service includes a flag in their > > > presence broadcast -- something like the following: > > > > > > <presence > > > from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/thirdwitch' > > > to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/desktop'> > > > <x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user'> > > > <item affiliation='member' role='participant'/> > > > </x> > > > <registered xmlns='urn:xmpp:mucserv'/> > > > </presence> > > > > > > > Seems ok... > > > > > 2. The service enables you to check if someone is registered: > > > > > > <iq from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/desktop' > > > id='check-nick-1' > > > to='macbeth.shakespeare.lit' > > > type='get'> > > > <registered xmlns='urn:xmpp:mucserv'> > > > thirdwitch > > > </registered> > > > </iq> > > > > > > If the nick is registered, the service returns an IQ-result, otherwise > > > it returns an error (<item-not-found/> if the nick is not registered, > > > <service-unavailable/> if the protocol is not supported): > > > > > > <iq from='macbeth.shakespeare.lit' > > > id='check-nick-1' > > > to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/desktop' > > > type='result'/> > > > > > > OR > > > > > > <iq from='macbeth.shakespeare.lit' > > > id='check-nick-1' > > > to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/desktop' > > > type='error'> > > > <error type='cancel'> > > > <item-not-found xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/> > > > </error> > > > </iq> > > > > > > > > > > Also ok... > > > > I'm wondering which would be more convenient from a client UI perspective. > > > > A new element in presence is a new overhead, but if you want to know > > up-front who is registered, we don't want clients to have to query > > each user in every MUC they join. > > > > In my use case I don't mind querying (I only want to know about people > > I interact with) and the same for HAL's use case (checking that the > > user is the same person, when he isn't in a position to know their > > JID). > >If we don't include it in presence, clients will query everyone. I think >I'd prefer the presence flag. > >Peter > >-- >Peter Saint-Andre >https://stpeter.im/ > -- kawaljeet singh chadha Here is the test to find whether your mission on Earth is finished: if you're alive, it isn't ...
