jdev - 2021-09-30

i have a user, which host its muc service and httpupload service on the same hostname

is this something usual which a client needs to deal with, or is this something a server opterator should rather not do

I don't think that should be a problem

ah this :D I had to fix my database schema for those cases

why XMPP admins always want to do funky things :p

Because they don't want to deal with a pile of subdomains, I gather.

subdomains are expensives things nowadays

They'd put the MUC on the base host if they could (and some do this)

(yes!)

Also, it's prettier :)

*doubts*

Totally not subjective

like it's totally not subjective to ask for multiple domains anyway :P

Namespacing and separation of concern is of course bad things that we should avoid.

/s

I remember that we talked about some MAM sync strategy, is there some documents somewhere that explains some good practices ?

better than "grab all the things since the begining of times"

found that one

https://github.com/modernxmpp/modernxmpp/pull/41/files

https://github.com/modernxmpp/modernxmpp/pull/41 discussion: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2021-August/038483.html

ok I see

hopefully I don't have the JS clients limit

finally, some good things of having a server side based XMPP client !

lovetox> i have a user, which host its muc service and httpupload service on the same hostname should be perfectly fine, in fact, you should be able to run most services under the main XMPP name, which makes many things a lot easier, e.g. less dns entries, less stuff to put in the certificate (and to authenticate)

flow, can I interest you in authoring a XEP saying that?

currently some clients don't work unless you put HTTP Upload on a subdomain

while some others don't work if you put XEP-0215 on a subdomain

MUC has the thing where it occupies nodeparts@ and you'd have take care not to cause conflicts with users

but that's something the service implementation has to take care of

yes

IIRC some clients had to fix problems when you did put users and MUCs at the same hostname

that said, I believe MUC occupying the same "namesapce" as user JIDs is a valid reason to have an extra subdomain

but http upload would be better without one

flow, yes, but the examples show a subdomain, so that's what at least one client did, and thus you have to deploy it like that or it doesn't work

Zash, did you open issues for clients which need http upload on an extra XMPP address?

and they didn't want to change because look at the XEP!

I think I could be persuaded in writing a patch for the http upload XEP to not use an extra XMPP address if it has consensus ✏

I'm only really aware of Siskin, and that issue was closed

closed as WONTFIX?

https://github.com/tigase/siskin-im/issues/37

https://github.com/tigase/siskin-im/issues/37#issuecomment-625876730 is probably a hint that some tribal knowledge of XMPP got lost

IIRC there is a way to iterate all "services" of a user's server to discover the feature

e.g. that PSI does to find components

that way, it should be trivial to discover that http upload is provied by the user's server address directly

FWIW my preferred fix is for someone to write an informational "how to discover services" XEP

yes, but I wonder why this is not part of xep30 already

not saying that it must go int xep30, only that it feels like the right place to mention it from the beginning

Yeah, in hindsight it should have been I think

What's this saying? https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0030.html#items-relationship

seems to come pretty close to it

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#disco-service seems to perpetuate the subdomain requirement

There's also the thing with node-less MUCs

in case of gajim, it works if you put httpupload without subdomain

what it seems the user did was, it put muc and httpupload on the same subdomain

which was unexpected because i discover these with disco-items

and for some reason i thought, every items belongs to one service

so after i found a service in the subsequent disco info for the item

i stopped looking for further ✏

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0030.html#info-basic > An entity MAY have multiple identities.

I thought it made sense to put all file transfer related things on the same host, ie proxy65+http upload+xep215