[jdev] Minimising number of MUC rooms

[Theo Cushion]

On 30 May 2012, at 14:28, Kevin Smith wrote:

> 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

Worth a fresh thread?