[Standards-JIG] JEP-0142 Workgroups Status?
kinema at gmail.com
Thu Feb 2 04:45:58 UTC 2006
Actually I was thinking that all of the clients in the workgroup would
receive the message but now that I think about it this would be a job for
I do see applications for what you are describing though. It would be nice
to see in the v0.3 of the JEP.
Seeing as the Workgroup JEP has been implemented and working well in a
production environment for so long why has it not been moved to Draft
From: standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org
[mailto:standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf Of Matt Tucker
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:59 PM
To: Jabber protocol discussion list
Subject: RE: [Standards-JIG] JEP-0142 Workgroups Status?
We've been using the Workgroup JEP in Live Assistant
(http://www.jivesoftware.com/products/liveassistant) since it's been
released and it's still working great. Peter actually has reviewing the
JEP on his todo list. After that, I think we can take it to the next
Your broadcast suggestion is a good one. I assume that you're thinking
that the first person that accepts the offer is the one that gets the
chat routed to?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org
> [mailto:standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf Of Adam Hunt
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:40 PM
> To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> Subject: [Standards-JIG] JEP-0142 Workgroups Status?
> What is the status of JEP-0142 Workgroups? The most recent
> revision, 0.2 was released just shy of a year ago. I do hope
> that it hasn't been abandon as I feel it has the potential of
> being very useful in a number of applications.
> Although this JEP seems to be focused on an implementation of
> (similar to what is found in IPv6 or IPv4 using BGP) I feel
> that it would also be beneficial to offer support for the
> equivalent of broadcast messages. In a broadcast situation a
> client would send a message to the workgroup where it would
> then be delivered to all members of the workgroup not just
> the first in the workgroup queue.
> Any thoughts?
More information about the Standards