Am 27.09.2011 19:33, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
On 9/27/11 11:28 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:Depending on what the problem one is trying to solve by server generation of the name instead of client side generation, possibly so. If reservation is desired and to be required of servers, that that should be clearly stated. I note that this would prevent a user from asking the server to get them a unique name and passing that to another user for the actual room creation. Without understanding the problem folks are trying to solve with this, hard to say whether reservations is desirable or not. [BA] Consider a scenario in which an XMPP MUC room is used to share information between police, medical and fire departments relating to an emergency call (perhaps one from a disabled user utilizing XEP-0301). You would not want an emergency caller to share an MUC room with other callers, so that a room with a unique name would need to be created.There are plenty of scenarios in which a unique room ID is needed. The question is, does the client need to ask the server to generate that room ID or can it simply generate one on its own?
As already said, the server would have to reserve the name for (unspecified) amount of time.
I don't see any problem for clients in first creating a room and afterwards sending out the room name to those the client want to share the room with.
And first reserving a room name, than sending out the name to other clients without having actually configured the room wouldn't work because others couldn't enter the room. So creation is always needed before sharing the room. I don't see any scenario where one client wants to reserve a room name and another client would create and configure that. If so the two clients already handle some internal protocol and that protocol should communicate the name of the actual created room.
Regards, Alexander
