[Standards] negative presence

Lukáš 'Spike' Polívka lukas.polivka at gmail.com
Sat Mar 24 01:55:49 UTC 2007


On 3/24/07, Pedro Melo <melo at simplicidade.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if anybody has an idea about support for negative presences
> in the servers all around. I´ve tested with wildfire and ejabberd.
> Wildfire forwards messages without a resource to a negative priority
> resource (I'm reporting this as a bug), ejabberd does not. Anybody
> tested with other servers?
Just a note: ejabberd and jabberd14 (AFAIK) send you the offline
stored messages when you change your priority to a positive value, no
need to relogin (it was necessary with older ejabberd versions).

>
> I'm also worried about clients. What would be the proper way for a
> client to deal with a negative presence? right now I think that he
> should not show the person as online, nor should he allow any chat
> messages to be sent directly to the resource. After all, I interpret
> negative priority as a "no chat" indication, right?
Imagine this:
When at work, I set my presence to DND and priority to -1 so that all
messages are either routed to my positive priority resource at home or
stored offline.
Now this negative priority enables me to chat with everyone* when I'm
the one initiating the chat session (they reply to my full JID) and
also in case of some high priority message, the contacts can
communicate with me − provided THEY KNOW HOW NEGATIVE PRIORITY WORKS
(which most ordinary users don't, unfortunately) so they know they
have to send the message to the specific resource.

Now when I have my break, I can change my priority to 0+ (or just go
back home), so that I can retrieve the "low priority" messages.

*Everyone except users with "broken" Gajim, which even REPLIES to bare
JID when there's no resource with higher priority. D'OH (I know
there's a SHOULD in the spec about it…)

The problem is that this concept/use case is not something most
(girl)friends or Aunts Tillie can grasp, though.
>
> The reason I'm asking is that we are starting to test agents, small
> task-oriented applications that work over XMPP to accomplish a simple
> task. They use the same JID as my main account. Think about an
> assistant, that receives meeting requests, checks you calendar and
> accepts or denies the request based on user defined criteria. Or a
> content management system that synchronizes all his content to all
> the elements of the team via XMPP.
Why not just use a dedicated account? I know, I know… :)

Question: Is it possible to log in WITHOUT sending presence at all?


Lukáš Polívka
-- 
IM (XMPP/Jabber/Google Talk): spike411 at jabber.cz
ICQ, AIM, MSN: Never ever!


More information about the Standards mailing list