On 11 January 2017 at 08:01, Piotr Nosek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 10 January 2017 at 14:37, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 10/01/2017 14:27, Dave Cridland wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10 January 2017 at 13:30, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On 10/01/2017 12:05, Steve Kille wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I have just issued a PR for MIX version 0.6.4. >> >>>> >> >>>> There is clear desire to have the option for MUC and MIX to use the >> >>>> same >> >>>> domain. The difficulty in achieving this was incompatible disco >> >>>> results. >> >>>> This version has made a change to >> >>>> add node='mix' to channel disco that will enable the queries to >> >>>> be >> >>>> disambiguated. >> >>> >> >>> I haven't been able to think of a case other than disco#items on the >> >>> room >> >>> JID where MUC and MIX are likely to collide. This change doesn't make >> >>> it >> >>> *easy* to implement both on the same domain, but I think it makes it >> >>> viable >> >>> - please shout if anyone can think of other cases. >> >>> >> >> I agree. Further, I only know of a single client that would ever hit >> >> disco#items on a room, and that's Psi in its generic disco "browser". >> >> >> > Are you suggesting that this approach isn't necessary, and it'd be >> > sufficient to 'break' disco#items handling for MUC-only clients? >> > >> >> I'd not thought of this approach, but I was considering advocating >> "just break". I think this means we don't have to. > > > What about using Entity Capabilities to establish whether the client should > receive MIX or MUC stanzas and syntax? I know that it's mandatory for every > client to announce its caps but in such case the server could failover to > default mode. I don't know unfortunately if all major clients include their > version in initial presence... >
You don't need to care - a client will either join a MIX using MIX syntax, or else join a MUC using MUC syntax, hosted at the same address. I think that with the disco change Steve has made, the two protocols have no overlap. The outlier case is a client joining a MUC via GC syntax, but I think that's practical too (I just haven't thought much about it). > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
