On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Yann Leboulanger <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/15/2012 05:59 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Yann Leboulanger<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 08/15/2012 05:48 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Yann Leboulanger<[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I was wonder what should I do in this situation: >>>>> user A and B are connected with resource r1. They that, so messages go >>>>> from >>>>> A/r1 to B/r1. >>>>> >>>>> user B connects a second client with resource r2 with a higher >>>>> priority. >>>>> >>>>> Where should go next message of user A? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> While I think 296 promotes unlocking more often than it should, in >>>> this case I agree with it - the next message should go to the bare >>>> JID. That a new resource has come online suggests a significant change >>>> in the user's state. >>> >>> >>> >>> Even if resource has a lower prio? >> >> >> Yes, I think so. > > > Ok, then I'll have to restart the stanza negociation then (for E2E and > message archiving) > > But I still think that's strange to unblock and restart the session if the > lower prio goes auto away for example.
Ah. This is where my disagreement with 296 starts coming out :) I think that if there are two resources, and the unbound resource becomes 'less available' (this isn't always easy to define, but there are some cases that are trivial, like available->(away|na|dnd)) the chat shouldn't be unbound. That is, where A has resource a and B has resources 1 and 2 where all resources start available. Message A/a->B : B (both) binds chat to A/a Message B/1 -> A/a : A binds chat to B/1 Presence B/2 goes away : A shouldn't unbind. Presence B/2 becomes available again : A should unbind. /K
