[standards-jig] Version 0.6 of JEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat)

Pasi Pärnänen pasi at parnanen.net
Thu Sep 26 12:18:31 UTC 2002


Richard Dobson:
> There is still the 256 byte limit so that does limit the levels of heirarchy
> you can support, also you cant compare IRC and your heirarchy's, IRC rooms
> are all at one level and most of the time will not ever come near the 256
> byte limit, but your heirarchy's on the other hand could well go way past
> that limit if there isnt a limit on the amount of levels it can go to, and a
> length limit on the names of those rooms.
> 
> You still have not answered with a solution to this SERIOUS problem until
> you do your system cannot proceed in its current form.

The only thing we need to know in JEP-0045 is the maximum URI length,
and that seems to be set already. The rest could be left to the
implementation, couldn't it? Besides, it's easy to recommend a wide
hierarchy instead of a deep one. We think we would have to really
provoke to even come close to 256 characters. Try it yourself.

If a server would come close to having too long URIs then one solution
for the implementors would be to use shortcuts to jump to other servers.
A bit like symbolic links between different file systems. That system
seems to work fine with the web and ftp. Using links could also tie
large numbers of conferences together into one chat environment, like
IRC networks. But links are matters for the implementation. 


> > compare these:
> > #channel%jabber.eu.openprojects.net at irc.jabber.org/username

NOTE! channel\jabber\eu\openprojects\net at irc.jabber.org

> > oubliette.dungeon.darkcastle at conference.jabber.org/username
> >
> > I'd say a discussion about hierarchies or not is moot. The standard
> > naming convention already allows it.
> 
> Well the standard naming convention allows virtually anything up to a point,
> so yes and no, it certainly doesnt allow hierarchies explictly.

So there's currently no limitation other than the maximum URI length to
be considered? Even a cow is allowed to play as long as it stays within
the fences... That's cool. 


> > Besides, to an old server the dot-rooms would be put next to the other
> > rooms in the row.
> 
> Rooms in a row, where? in the browse?

Sorry, but i forgot... In jabber at c.j.o we call it a row to differentiate
from hierarchies. What would you call a one-dimensional collection of
rooms? A corridor? 


> > JEP-0045 could be said to be about how to talk to different chat
> > systems, instead of just a room.
> 
> ?? I dont understand what you are trying to get at here.
> 
> > Therefore we would all address the conference system even though we
> > think we're sending it to a room. The separation of rooms from
> > conference is simply not necessary.
> 
> Huh? Not necessary? What are you going on about?

When interacting with a chat system such as IRC or conferences, we tend
to think that we are talking to a room when in fact we are talking to
the server controlling the room. Although we have two ways of
interacting with IRC (rooms and servers), it's is in fact the server
that answers in both cases. The same can be said about the hiearchical
jabber conference server that we are working on. We probably need two
ways of talking to the conference, but we don't have to decide how in
this JEP. 

We see no need to hinder the progress only because of one word. The
current scope applies (and works well) if we believe "room" to mean
"chat system". We can live with that.


-- Pasi Pärnänen (BlackDog)




More information about the Standards mailing list