On Wed Aug 27 02:58:40 2008, Matthew Wild wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Lirette, Keith J. CONTR J9C618
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a use case for a low bandwidth client which would benefit
from
> the ability to control client receipt of MUC participant presence
> packets. In the use case, the user is interested in the message
traffic
> but does not need to know who is currently participating in the
MUC
> session.
>
A similar solution to this problem was discussed a while ago, namely
the additon of some sort of "outsider" role. This would allow for
example, bots to post notifications to MUC rooms without needing to
log in.
Outsiders, as I recall, don't appear as participants, either -
they're essetially members who can send messages to participants
without needing to be a participant themselves.
Either works really, I suppose, and probably your suggestion is the
easier to implement. Of course it also misses the option to not
receive messages, which may/may not be wanted. I can imagine there
would be opposition to the possibility of "invisible" participants
in
MUC rooms :)
... and Keith suggestion works the other way around - the client *is*
a participant, but makes everyone else invisible to it.
It'd be interesting to see if it's worth offering control of a range
of traffic, or whether we should just implement Keith's suggestion
more or less as-is.
One thing aimed at Keith in particular, though - I'd much rather not
add things to MUC at this point. We can certainly tidy existing
practise, and we can of course always extend:
<x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc'>
<nopresence xmlns='urn:xmpp:tmp:nopresence'/>
</x>
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
