jdev - 2025-05-12

  1. halscode

    I think the optimal implementation would indeed require server-side behavior: a client sends an iq set to the server with the MAM ID of a message to (un)pin, the server marks it, and then it keeps that message in the archive and it can return it in response to an iq get. Supporting MUC components would also have to introduce a privilege for it (not sure how that would work). The set/get would be to the MUC or, for direct chat messages, to the other party's bare JID. One alternative is starting with PEP-on-MUC, then implementing pinned messages on top of that. It's more powerful and more enticing, I'm sure there are other things that can use it. But it is a lot more complex.

  2. halscode

    One could go further with that (the first point) by having an option in the iq get to have it not just return the IDs, but also to have the pinned messages sent to you again in the way MAM does it

  3. singpolyma

    Yeah. There's a new use case for MUC jid is a pubsub node every month at least it seems, so getting that implemented for at least one server seems like it would be a big win

  4. Maranda

    Huhu resurrecting MEP?

  5. Maranda

    ( https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0316.html )

  6. edhelas

    MEP 😍

  7. Maranda

    At least ejabberd had some kind of implementations IIRC ✎

  8. Maranda

    At least ejabberd had some kind of implementation IIRC ✏

  9. edhelas

    If you forgot to put the PEP restriction on MUC JIDs only you have MEP already *tap on head* ✎

  10. edhelas

    If you forgot to put the PEP restriction on MUC JIDs you have MEP already *tap on head* ✏

  11. edhelas

    And then I'll ask for SEP, would love to have avatars and vCards on Pubsub services :p

  12. Maranda

    So we had MEP... Which then was not pretty at the time and turned into MIX to replace MUC and we're back to MUC and MEP 🫣

  13. halscode

    i mean, it's that or the huge stack of MIX that nobody uses

  14. halscode

    I was planning on putting MIX into my client (before MUC, in part so that Moxxy could have MUC first since they were already working on it), and then later putting a limited set of MUC into it (join and participate but not manage or create). But after asking around, it looks like MIX is just dead and there's no interest in other clients or servers in (finishing) implementing it. Real shame, it's a great protocol too.

  15. Maranda

    Unfortunately MIX started with good promises but slightly after turned into Godzilla and perhaps... 🤦😅

  16. halscode

    Oh yeah someone on Fedi claimed there was talk about a "Groupchat 3" as an evolution of MUC and a replacement to MIX, bringing MIX features into MUC

  17. halscode

    is it bullshit or is there any actual word on that?

  18. singpolyma

    yes, GC3 is something being talked about