[Standards-JIG] Re: Directed presence -> subscribed -> unsubscribed-> ???
gaston at jivesoftware.com
Tue Nov 29 03:21:46 UTC 2005
Yep, in that scenario I agree that it may make sense. However, the use case
that I have in mind involves shared rosters so we can say that it's not an
XMPP standard case (yet). :)
This is the case I'm thinking of:
1. User_1 logs in
2. User_1 sends a directed presence to an entity (where the entity is
similar to a MUC room so a directed presence is the only way to join)
3. User_1 and the entity are included in the same shared roster (that means
that they will have a presence subscription of type BOTH)
4. User_1 is removed from the shared roster (that means that the presence
subscription is cancelled)
5. Canceling the presence subscription will end up sending an unavailable
presence to the entity thus leaving it (like leaving the room)
In this more complicated scenario, I would prefer the server to not send an
unavailable presence since a directed presence was sent before. Otherwise,
User_1 would have to send another directed presence to the entity to join
again. What do you think?
"Ralph Meijer" <jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu> wrote in message
news:20051126190611.GA91836 at ik.nu...
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:42:15PM -0300, Gaston Dombiak wrote:
>> Hey all,
>> In my opinion, the server should not be sending unavailable presences if
>> directed presences were previously sent. Otherwise, user_1 should be
>> of how servers work and should send another directed presence to user_2.
>> What do you think? :)
> I think that if you cancel someone else's subscription to your presence,
> that you say: 'now I don't want this person to know my presence
> anymore'. This overrides any previous directed presences and is actually
> very intuitive.
More information about the Standards