headers
Jason McIntosh | 4 Jan 06:48
Gravatar

MUC configuration question

Peter, or anyone else who pays more attention to the spec than me:

In JEP-0045, are the the Jabber Registrar-defined "muc#roomconfig_foo" 
fields the _only_ fields that the MUC server should expect in incoming 
room-configuration forms?

I'm currently running into a problem where a new Volity referee is 
having trouble configuraing a room for the non-anonymity it wants, 
because the MUC server currently running on volity.net seems to be deaf 
to all those fields, and offers instead (when asked for a blank form) 
some completely different, non-namespaced fields of its own.

(I am suspecting that the ejabberd MUC (at least the version we're 
running now) is a little weird and off-spec in other ways -- most 
notably in that, if I send no config form at all to a new room, other 
users can still wander in.)

--
   Jason McIntosh             jmac <at> jmac.org
Somerville, MA, USA       http://www.jmac.org

-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 4 Jan 19:30

Re: MUC configuration question

In article <488274E4-5E14-11D9-99C2-000A95CBBC34 <at> jmac.org>,
 Jason McIntosh <jmac <at> jmac.org> wrote:

> Peter, or anyone else who pays more attention to the spec than me:
> 
> In JEP-0045, are the the Jabber Registrar-defined "muc#roomconfig_foo" 
> fields the _only_ fields that the MUC server should expect in incoming 
> room-configuration forms?
> 
> I'm currently running into a problem where a new Volity referee is 
> having trouble configuraing a room for the non-anonymity it wants, 
> because the MUC server currently running on volity.net seems to be deaf 
> to all those fields, and offers instead (when asked for a blank form) 
> some completely different, non-namespaced fields of its own.

Those are the recommended configuration fields. A MUC server is allowed 
to offer other fields, but that is not recommended. I'd file a bug 
report with the ejabberd folks.

> (I am suspecting that the ejabberd MUC (at least the version we're 
> running now) is a little weird and off-spec in other ways -- most 
> notably in that, if I send no config form at all to a new room, other 
> users can still wander in.)

It may time out the room configuration. That's mentioned in JEP-0045 as 
allowable.

/psa

-------------------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jason McIntosh | 7 Jan 00:35
Gravatar

Re: Re: MUC configuration question

On Jan 4, 2005, at 1:30 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> In article <488274E4-5E14-11D9-99C2-000A95CBBC34 <at> jmac.org>,
>  Jason McIntosh <jmac <at> jmac.org> wrote:
>
>> Peter, or anyone else who pays more attention to the spec than me:
>>
>> In JEP-0045, are the the Jabber Registrar-defined "muc#roomconfig_foo"
>> fields the _only_ fields that the MUC server should expect in incoming
>> room-configuration forms?
>>
>> I'm currently running into a problem where a new Volity referee is
>> having trouble configuraing a room for the non-anonymity it wants,
>> because the MUC server currently running on volity.net seems to be 
>> deaf
>> to all those fields, and offers instead (when asked for a blank form)
>> some completely different, non-namespaced fields of its own.
>
> Those are the recommended configuration fields. A MUC server is allowed
> to offer other fields, but that is not recommended. I'd file a bug
> report with the ejabberd folks.

OK.

Is there a way, perhaps through disco, to tell if a server responds to 
those fields? I'd would be nice if a game server program, upon launch, 
could make sure that the MUC server it's configured to use supports the 
only configuration fields it knows how to send.

>> (I am suspecting that the ejabberd MUC (at least the version we're
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 18 Jan 16:52

Re: MUC configuration question

In article <97534EEA-603B-11D9-BC2F-000A95CBBC34 <at> jmac.org>,
 Jason McIntosh <jmac <at> jmac.org> wrote:

> > Those are the recommended configuration fields. A MUC server is allowed
> > to offer other fields, but that is not recommended. I'd file a bug
> > report with the ejabberd folks.
> 
> OK.
> 
> Is there a way, perhaps through disco, to tell if a server responds to 
> those fields? I'd would be nice if a game server program, upon launch, 
> could make sure that the MUC server it's configured to use supports the 
> only configuration fields it knows how to send.

We have not defined a disco feature for each one of those configuration 
fields (which seems a bit much). Perhaps it would make sense to have one 
disco feature for each FORM_TYPE that a MUC room supports (and assume 
that it probably supports most of the registered fields for that 
FORM_TYPE if it supports the FORM_TYPE). I'll add that to the next 
version of the spec (it's currently under revision).

Peter

-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane