On 05-03-14 11:46, Ralph Meijer wrote: Hi,
>> could you elaborate on this proposal a little bit, please? > Agreed. I'm a more of a fan of publish-subscribe than the next guy, > but I don't see how this is a helpful suggestion without > elaboration. OK >>> It would be so much easier to just allow 7.11 Getting the >>> Memberlist also for the Entity Use Cases, so that an entity could >>> just query a room for it's members (without having joined the >>> room): > Agreed. Reading the text there, I think MUC servers MAY actually > support that. It doesn't explicitly limit it to occupants or admins. Well, I *assumed* your MUC implementation did not support this. Assuming that, you can try to change your MUC implementation (leaving alone the question if a change to XEP-0045 is needed). But when you have to change your MUC implementation, you may consider to hook into the pubsub infrastructure: that infrastructure leaves much more room for creating data nodes for providing the data you need. It is my experience that sticking to MUC too much for scenario's like yours results in lots of code that consists of workarounds around the MUC protocol (or its implementations). I wished I asked myself the question if MUC is really the right tool for my job long before. In my case it may have been better to use something more flexible like pubsub or even creating my own component. So without diving into the implementation, I wanted to pose the general question whether you have the right tools at hand for your job: MUC works great, but only in quite straightforward use cases. Winfried
