[jdev] Question on Presence, Invisibility and MUC

[Daniel Dormont]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Waqas Hussain <waqas20 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Daniel Dormont
> <dan at greywallsoftware.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In my XMPP application, users can exchange both private messages and
> > presence and join MUCs. Ok, simple enough. I've implemented invisibility
> > according to XEP-0126. I'd like the users to be still able to join MUCs
> > while invisible, though. The issue I'm running into is that the first
> step
> > in going invisible is sending an unavailable presence for broadcasting to
> > all contacts: <presence type='unavailable'/>
> >
> > Unfortunately for me, this has the additional effect of kicking the user
> out
> > of any MUCs they'd joined in that particular session. I've already
> figured
> > out how to tweak the privacy list so users can join MUCs while invisible
> to
> > individual contacts, basically it just looks like
> >
> >     <list name='invisible'>
> >       <item type='jid'
> >             value='conference.mydomain'
> >             action='allow'
> >             order='1'>
> >         <presence-out/>
> >       </item>
> >       <item action='deny' order='2'>
> >         <presence-out/>
> >       </item>
> >     </list>
> >
> > But I'm running into this problem when the user tries to go "globally"
> > invisible while already in one or more MUCs. Is there any way around
> this?
> > My initial thought was to direct the unavailable presence to only the
> > primary (IM) domain rather than having no "to" as indicated in the XEP,
> but
> > that doesn't seem to broadcast to anybody, so contacts who already
> thought
> > the user was online will continue to think so.
> >
> > Is there any way around this? Or will I have to change my approach to
> > invisibility?
> >
>
> Blocking out-going presence to the chatrooms before you send
> unavailable presence might work. This is a hack which depends on the
> server not sending unavailable presence to blocked contacts.
>
> Directed presence is almost completely separate from normal presence
> status, with this one exception: unavailable presence broadcasts. I'm
> beginning to think this is more harmful than helpful.
>
> Relevant spec section: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6121#section-4.6.3
>
>
I think I need some more time to digest that section. There's something I
still don't quite follow about it. But in the mean time, your trick of
temporarily employing a privacy list that's the exact opposite of the
normal invisibility one, worked fine, so thanks.

dan



> > thanks,
> > Dan
> >
>
> --
> Waqas Hussain
> _______________________________________________
> JDev mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
> Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe at jabber.org
> _______________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20121022/595c2c13/attachment.html>