[jdev] Minimising number of MUC rooms

[Kevin Smith]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Theo Cushion <theo at jivatechnology.com> wrote:
>
> On 30 May 2012, at 14:13, Kevin Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Theo Cushion <theo at jivatechnology.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> On 30 May 2012, at 13:21, Kevin Smith wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Theo Cushion <theo at jivatechnology.com>
> wrote:
>
> I agree that there is never going to be a silver bullet that will solve all
> issues. However, there is always going to be a limit on the rate of stanzas
> that can be dealt with in a timely manner what ever the platform.
>
>
> I'm not sure there's a silver bullet that'll solve all your problems
>
> trivially - but I'm also not sure that there isn't a solution that
>
> gains you more than what you currently propose.
>
>
> So, there are two things being discussed here:
>
>
> 1) Your use case and the need to limit the work done by the client on
>
> login. I think this is addressable for your deployment by limiting the
>
> number of rooms that need to be joined prior to there being activity
>
> in them (or possibly by using pubsub nodes rather that MUC rooms,
>
> although this is not a clear win and requires you to do significantly
>
> more client work).
>
>
> 2) Allowing servers to 'force' or 'autojoin' users into MUCs - this is
>
> a feature that's generally interesting and speccing it up seems
>
> sensible even if it won't help your cases (although it might, in
>
> combination with some new server code).
>
>
> It would certainly be nice to be able to get what ever saving is possible
> from the standards, as then everyone can benefit rather than focusing on
> application specific code.
>
>
> Anything that can be done to minimise it will create more breathing room. By
> those estimates I'd say losing a 1/3 of the stanzas across the wire is a
> significant optimisation.
>
>
> Right, it is.
>
>
> Perhaps the saving could be greater, why would there be 300+ back? If I were
> only the occupant, would I not just get my own presence back?
>
>
> It'll receive presence from anyone in the room (I've not counted this)
>
> its own presence (I did count this), any message history
>
> requested/sent (I've not counted this) and the room subject, which
>
> indicates the join is complete (I did count this).
>
>
> Is this possibly a great fit for the Pubsub/Muc hybrid. Clients can
> permanently subscribe selectively to things they are interested in. For
> example, I don't care about room subject, but presence and history I might
> care about. Having this information map on to nodes to the MUC jid gives
> very fine control over what information is required using an existing
> standard. Could the Pubsub/Muc hybrid simply come down to certain predefined
> mappings, plus room for arbitrary information.
>
>
> You mean exposing the room as both a MUC and as MEP, both being a
> representation onto the same data? That would certainly help in your
> case. I wonder what other people think of it?
>
> /K
>
>
> I think we're on the same page. I'll try and illustrate with an example:
>
> We have a normal MUC room residing here: "heath at chat.shakespeare.lit"
>
> However, we also have a Pubsub root node living at the same address, then we
> have a number of predefined children nodes,  for sake of argument (I guess
> advertised using the disco features):
>
> - jid = "heath at chat.shakespeare.lit" node = "users"
> - jid = "heath at chat.shakespeare.lit" node = "messages"
> - jid = "heath at chat.shakespeare.lit" node = "subject"
>
> (I don't think this will conflict with anything?)
>
> If I want to receive all events in Pubsub form I subscribe to
> "heath at chat.shakespeare.lit". If I just want the messages and users I can
> subscribe to "heath at chat.shakespeare.lit, users" and
> "heath at chat.shakespeare.lit, messages" respectively. Or I could request
> certain items, using normal pubsub messages.
>
>
> It gives me the power of Pubsub, and the advantages of MUC without
> introducing a load of baggage. Just as we represent some of this information
> using Disco (who's in a room, subject, etc) we are doing the same for
> Pubsub, except we are doing it in a push fashion.
>
> Any merit?

It's an interesting idea, and it does address your use case quite
nicely. I wonder what other people think?

Particularly - does this solve any use cases for the community-at-large?

/K