jdev - 2021-09-01

  1. wolfspelz

    Hi, I recently upgraded from very old ejabberd to current. I noticed that, that when I enter a room, mod_muc sends an room-presence without nickname (bare room JID) and then a room-presence with nickname (room JID with nickname resource) as expected. I wonder why I get an initial presence type=available with a bare JID of the room. Did the protocol change? Can someone enlighten me?

  2. Zash

    That's how the room avatar is delivered.

  3. Zash

    I don't like that method, but users want room avatars, so that's become a de-facto standard.

  4. wolfspelz

    Zash is that an answer to my question? For the room avatar, the room JID with nickname would be enough. Why the additional bare room JID?

  5. Zash

    What nickname? The room itself can't have a nickname

  6. wolfspelz

    Client sends: presence available to=room-name@server/participant-nickname MUC sends back: 1. presence available from=room-name@server 2. presence available from=room-name@server/participant-nickname The second is the normal join confirmation. But the first presence I do not understand. That was not sent by older ejabberd mod_muc versions.

  7. MattJ


  8. wolfspelz

    Problem is that the client creates a participant with empty nickname unless I filter it out, which was not necessary before.

  9. Zash


  10. MattJ

    Zash already explained that this is so the room can advertise an avatar

  11. MattJ

    and that we don't like it, but it's apparently here to stay

  12. Zash

    This is known to trigger exactly that kind of problem in other clients, until they worked around it.

  13. Zash

    I don't like this way, but previous XMPP Councils did not approve of any other way, so this is it.

  14. MattJ

    It crashed at least one client :)

  15. wolfspelz

    What means "advertiye an avatar". What do you mean by "avatar". In XMPP speak, the term "avatar" meant an image like a vcard image

  16. MattJ

    Yes, an image, for the room

  17. Zash

    I don't think this method was explicitly approved either, but if you squint at XEP-0153 just the right way it's "standard"

  18. wolfspelz

    ok, I understand: an image for the room. Thats weird

  19. Zash

    wolfspelz: Like this https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0153.html#example-3

  20. Zash

    But from=the room itself

  21. MattJ

    wolfspelz, see all these rooms for example: https://search.jabber.network/rooms/1

  22. Zash

    And as I said, users want this and complain loudly if it's not supported. And now it's pretty much too late to do anything about it until we migrate to MIX

  23. wolfspelz

    OK, I sse colorful "room-avatars", then so be it. may old clients die

  24. Zash

    What is old may never die...

  25. wolfspelz

    ok, thanks a lot