[Standards-JIG] Re: proto-JEP: Workgroups

trejkaz at xaoza.net trejkaz at xaoza.net
Mon Sep 13 06:42:01 UTC 2004

At Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 04:23:28PM -0500, Matt Tucker wrote:
> Nolan,
> > > http://www.jabber.org/jeps/inbox/workgroup.html
> > 
> > I was just looking through this, and was wondering how 
> > invitations get sent?
> > This proto-jep makes use of JEP-0045's invitation protocol, 
> > but with MUC you have to be in the room to send an 
> > invitation. Looking at the proto-jep, the user and agent 
> > enter the chat room after the invitation is sent. So does the 
> > workgroup service have to be in the chat room too?
> The way that the workgroup service integrates with MUC is left
> unspecified at the moment. But, yes, the workgroup service itself is the
> one responsible for creating rooms as necessary and then inviting the
> agent and user. Our thinking is that the way this works is
> implementation-specific. For example, some servers may have a close
> coupling between their MUC implementation and the workgroup JEP. In that
> case, some sort of back-end event might generate the proper room
> creation and invitations. Other servers may have a very loose coupling
> which would require some sort of bot/service to do the MUC room
> provisioning and invitations.


Nolan has reminded me of my other question that was floating around in my head. :-)
As you can tell, I'm still playing mailing list catch-up from several weeks worth of

The way I envisage this sort of thing working in practice is for the workgroup entity
to be a service-like entity.  All the examples in the JEP have the workgroup specified
as a JID with a node (support at company.com), however the most convenient way I found to
implement this in practise was with a domain-only entity (support.company.com).

Now, I'm not completely sure... but could it be possible that the same entity is the
groupchat itself?  i.e., if support.company.com is the workgroup, is it possible that
abcdef at support.company.com is one of the groupchat rooms?

And if so, does it make sense for support.company.com to be sending groupchat invites?
Because it is the server itself, which is _definitely_ unusual for groupchats. :-)


'Every sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' - Arthur C Clarke
'Every sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology' - Tom Graves

             Email: Trejkaz Xaoza <trejkaz at xaoza.net>
          Web site: http://xaoza.net/trejkaz/
         Jabber ID: trejkaz at jabber.xaoza.net
   GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F  A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20040913/7f1b1c66/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list