[JDEV] jabberd patch

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Wed Feb 26 03:15:56 CST 2003

Yea thats ok, so long as the current method is the standard and default
option and that the second reverse option should only be used if your
sepecific application requires it, it should not be used in ordinary client
environments tho IMO especially ones with novice users, also the problems in
using the second method must be highlighted and the normal first option
being defined as the prefered option.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew A. Miller" <linuxwolf at outer-planes.no-ip.com>
To: "JDEV Mailing List" <jdev at jabber.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] jabberd patch

> The more I read this thread, the more I agree with both sides...
> Is there middle ground to be had?  What if XMPP were defined in such a
> way that if a connection/session attempted to auth as an already online
> one, it was up to the server.  If the server decided it was allowed, it
> sent the appropriate iq-error to the original connection (302?) along
> with the disconnect.  If the server decided it wasn't, it sent a 409 or
> 405 iq-error to the new connection along with the diconnect.
> Does the above sound reasonable?  If so, I'll make a point of
> approaching the XMPP I-D authors on it.
> -  LW
> On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 16:03, Wes Morgan wrote:
> > I forgot to mention why I needed this behavior in the first place... I
> > implemented a custom web-based chat system for a client that uses
jabberd as
> > its backend. However, one of the requirements for the system was that
> > could only log on once, and that if they tried to log on a second time,
> > wouldn't be allowed (unless, of course, they terminated the first
session). I
> > had been keeping track of this in a state database that my auth agent
> > using (it communicates with jabberd at the XDB level), but sometimes
> > and this database would get out of sync with each other. So, I decided
> > just build this functionality into jabberd itself. That's why, for my
> > it wouldn't work to just "define the protocol" as kicking the first
> > connection when a second one comes along. I at least need the option of
> > changing the functionality.
> >
> > Wes Morgan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jdev mailing list
> > jdev at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
> --
> Matt "linuxwolf" Miller
> JID: linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
> E-MAIL: linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
> - Got "JABBER"? (http://www.jabber.org/)
> _______________________________________________
> jdev mailing list
> jdev at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev

More information about the JDev mailing list