On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Justin Karneges
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are many places where a UUID may be appropriate, but I don't think this
> is one of them. You're desiring an unique handle to the MUC service, and the
> MUC itself is really the authority for that.
>
How about:
Client requests to create a room, using the best hash it can muster:
<presence
to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/nick''
from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/home'>
<x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc'/>
<unique xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#unique' />
</presence>
Server supports unique extension, and the room already existed, so it
replies with a new one:
<presence
from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/nick''
to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/home'>
<unique xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#unique'>[EMAIL
PROTECTED]/nick</unique>
<x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user'>
<item affiliation='owner'
role='moderator'/>
<status code='110'/>
<status code='201'/>
</x>
</presence>
This saves the round-trip, and the worst case result (the server
doesn't support the extension and the hash collides) is the same as
what we have now.
Matthew.
