jdev - 2019-09-21


  1. sonny

    Hey, so xmpp.js supports "dynamic" dns/http lookups. However a user is asking to add multiple endpoints support *client side* in configuration. Is that a common requirement?

  2. sonny

    https://github.com/xmppjs/xmpp.js/issues/568

  3. sonny

    or common use case*

  4. pep.

    I'm curious what their use-case is, fallback endpoints? Maybe they can solve that at the DNS level rather?

  5. sonny

    "I'm a user that doesn't have admin capabilities to update DNS on our XMPP servers, and admins who do are reluctant to do so because of pre-existing network dependencies"

  6. pep.

    I see. Then I guess it depends if you want to support this use-case? I can't help much I'm not sure how common that is

  7. sonny

    ok - thanks

  8. pep.

    sonny, maybe ask conversejs? or jsxc

  9. pep.

    JC is not on this channel, maybe you can join discuss@conference.conversejs.org

  10. sonny

    why? I don't think it is web specific

  11. pep.

    Ah when that user says endpoint, what kind of endpoint is that

  12. pep. rereads the issue

  13. sonny

    yep it's unclear

  14. pep.

    What does "enpoint" in the doc means? In the documentation bits they quoted

  15. sonny

    hostname and port

  16. sonny

    tcp/direct tls/websocket

  17. pep.

    interesting

  18. sonny

    here you get an idea https://github.com/xmppjs/xmpp.js/tree/master/packages/resolve#usage

  19. sonny

    so if you pass a domain to the client library it uses `resolve` to fetch endpoints, sort them, and fallbacks https://github.com/xmppjs/xmpp.js/tree/master/packages/client#client-1

  20. sonny

    yeah doc is really lacking I think it's defeating its purpose by confusing users

  21. pep.

    What project doesn't have lacking documentation..

  22. sonny

    prosody? 😀

  23. pep.

    I'm not convinced. (Not saying it's particularly bad either)

  24. lovetox

    hm can i send a direct invite as pm to a muc participant?

  25. Zash

    I don't see why not

  26. lovetox

    hm yes

  27. Zash

    Unless it's tied too hard to invites being in type=normal messages?

  28. lovetox

    yeah i just looked that up

  29. lovetox

    but nothing says that a direct invite must be type=normal

  30. lovetox

    where you are getting this from?

  31. lovetox

    also private message can be type=chat

  32. lovetox

    or type=normal

  33. lovetox

    it just is not allowed for it to be type=groupchat

  34. Zash

    Mostly just based on examples in https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0249.html having no type attribute

  35. Zash

    It /would/ be kinda cool to send invites to entire rooms

  36. lovetox

    yeah but that just doesnt mean a thing does it

  37. lovetox

    all examples are minimal examples

  38. lovetox

    and only contain stuff which is absolutley necessary