[Standards-JIG] Re: Affiliation changes (JEP-0045)

JD Conley jd.conley at coversant.net
Fri Jan 14 20:52:23 UTC 2005


> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org [mailto:standards-jig-
> bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 11:08 AM
> To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> Subject: [Standards-JIG] Re: Affiliation changes (JEP-0045)
> 
> In article
> <8CDC3525190B624F8F740435C7B9A01D59C5 at heineken.winfessor.com>,
>  "JD Conley" <jconley at winfessor.com> wrote:
> 
> > Do affiliation changes have to go "in order" as noted in the
samples?
> > Or can an Owner change an Admin to an Outcast in one fowl swoop?
> 
> I think it's "fell swoop". ;-)

Oops.  Apparently I need a refresher on my Shakespeare.  It's been taken
over by American mispronunciation.  Darn phonics . . . ;)

> 
> I've modified the rules to simplify them, per earlier discussion. So
now
> the spec says you can go straight from Owner to Outcast, do not pass
go,
> do not pay $200.

Good. :)

> 
> > On that note, what changes are allowed in the owner namespace vs.
the
> > admin namespace?  Changing an affiliation to member/none/outcast is
all
> > in the admin namespace in the samples, but the owner namespace
schema
> > also lists those as valid values in the affiliation enumeration.  It
> > appears to me that the service must respond to all affiliation
changes
> > (iq type set containing item(s)) in both the owner and admin
namespace.
> > Is this correct?  Either way, it should be more clear in the spec.
> 
> Well. Yes, the schemas do not restrict what you can send in the #admin
> vs. #owner namespace with regard to affiliation values. I see two
> options at this point:
> 
> (1) Explicitly define which values of the 'affiliation' attribute are
> allowed in #admin vs. #owner.
> 
> (2) Specify that all affiliation changes occur in queries qualified by
> the #admin namespace, reserving #owner for room creation,
configuration,
> and destruction.
> 
> #1 seems rather abitrary, so I would lean toward #2.

I like #2 as well.  Having it in both places is just confusing.


JD



More information about the Standards mailing list