[jdev] Question on Presence, Invisibility and MUC

[Obaid Shaik]

Hi Guys,
Can I know the procedure of creating a room please, I'm searching for it
day long please help and do we have the delegate methods of creating a room
and do other functions too... Please help me in taking a start in creating
a room thank you.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Daniel Dormont
<dan at greywallsoftware.com>wrote:

>
> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121023/4a6e92cc/attachment.html>