Logs for jdev
[05:42:46] * evilotto joined the chat.
[06:09:08] * mlundblad_laptop joined the chat.
[06:25:01] * Destructhor joined the chat.
[06:28:10] * Hermitifier joined the chat.
[06:30:08] * Destructhor left the chat.
[06:34:21] * evilotto left the chat.
[06:56:03] * Guus joined the chat.
[07:13:04] * jprieur joined the chat.
[07:13:04] * jprieur left the chat.
[07:13:35] * Ludovic joined the chat.
[07:14:02] * Ludovic left the chat.
[07:22:12] * ermine joined the chat.
[07:26:47] * Ludovic joined the chat.
[07:29:15] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[07:33:08] * Ludovic left the chat.
[07:34:27] * Ludovic joined the chat.
[07:42:25] * Ludovic left the chat.
[07:44:47] * Ludovic joined the chat.
[07:44:54] * Link Mauve joined the chat.
[08:05:31] * Tobias joined the chat.
[08:14:55] * nabatt joined the chat.
[08:17:40] * Guus left the chat.
[08:17:43] * Guus joined the chat.
[08:36:11] * Guus left the chat.
[09:07:21] * Kevmin joined the chat.
[09:23:58] * Treebilou joined the chat.
[09:34:00] * Florob joined the chat.
[09:36:56] <Florob> Hmm... does someone know if google has really started to use "standard jingle" as claimed on p.j.o?
[09:38:29] <Asterix> ho, so they really want to update their jingle implementation?
[09:40:16] <Florob> Asterix, well, I'd like to know. Until proven wrong I'll assume this is just marketing-talk "we are awesome we use standards
(and don't tell you it's our modified version)"
[09:41:02] <Asterix> that would prevent us to do some hack to suport gmail jingle implementation ...
[09:48:04] * Ludovic left the chat.
[09:49:13] * Ludovic joined the chat.
[09:52:35] * Ludovic left the chat.
[10:02:11] * Will joined the chat.
[10:02:15] * Will left the chat.
[10:10:11] * Treebilou left the chat.
[10:38:32] * Zash joined the chat.
[10:44:08] <Tobias> ahh..nice...seems google really plans to update its jingle stack after long: http://code.google.com/p/libjingle/wiki/FAQ
[11:08:28] * Tobias left the chat.
[11:08:33] * Tobias joined the chat.
[11:19:46] * MattJ joined the chat.
[12:22:58] * Tobias left the chat.
[12:49:34] <mlundblad_laptop> the question is: will they they update there STUN and TURN stuff to be compliant too?
[12:49:57] <mlundblad_laptop> right now, in libnice we have a special compatibilty mode for google
[12:50:37] <Zash> "special compatibilty mode for google" *facepalm*
[12:50:47] <Zash> why does it sound like microsoft?
[12:51:48] <mlundblad_laptop> because that's basically what it is...
[12:56:01] <dwd> Google Talk - the Internet Explorer of XMPP.
[12:57:25] <mlundblad_laptop> Google Live Messenger
[12:57:26] <mlundblad_laptop> :p
[13:00:31] * bear joined the chat.
[13:22:06] * smoku joined the chat.
[13:26:00] * boman joined the chat.
[13:26:12] * mlundblad_laptop left the chat.
[13:33:56] * nabatt left the chat.
[13:36:01] * smoku left the chat.
[13:37:32] * boman left the chat.
[13:39:20] * Kanchil joined the chat.
[13:54:05] * lastsky joined the chat.
[13:54:13] * Neustradamus left the chat.
[14:15:51] * wiretap joined the chat.
[14:16:57] * Treebilou joined the chat.
[14:17:43] * Treebilou left the chat.
[14:18:25] * Treebilou joined the chat.
[14:25:00] * waqas joined the chat.
[14:25:15] * _wiretap joined the chat.
[14:26:09] * mlundblad_laptop joined the chat.
[14:41:13] * Treebilou left the chat.
[15:00:53] * Xificurk joined the chat.
[15:05:13] * mlundblad_laptop left the chat.
[15:07:24] <louiz> isn't the pretty print of the XML messed up in this example? http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0083.html#usecases-retrieve
[15:08:09] <louiz> Shouldn't the server and the client stanzas be in TWO separated <p> ?
[15:08:10] <waqas> I suspect the pretty printing happens when the text starts with '<'
[15:08:11] <waqas> That's just a guess
[15:08:28] <louiz> the "CLIENT:" and "SERVER:" shouldn't be there, i think.
[15:08:43] <louiz> that should be out of the pretty printed paragraph
[15:09:25] <waqas> They are there if you look at the XML: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0083.xml
[15:09:55] <louiz> firefox give me an erreur :p
[15:10:04] <waqas> View source
[15:10:32] <louiz> yes, done. But that's what I'm saying, these "CLIENT:" stuff should not be there...
[15:10:39] <Zash> <iq type='get'
[15:10:56] <Zash> oh, the > is on the next line, nm
[15:11:16] * hawke joined the chat.
[15:11:20] <waqas> louiz: Add an issue to tracker.xmpp.org, with a patch if you can :)
[15:12:12] <dwd> What's [xep 83]?
[15:12:13] <Kanchil> dwd: XEP-0083: Nested Roster Groups is Informational (Active, 2004-10-11) See: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0083.html
[15:12:17] <dwd> Oh.
[15:12:57] <dwd> louiz, You're the one doing a pubsub browser in Gajim, right? How's that going?
[15:14:14] <dwd> Eeek. Interaction between 0083 and 0060/0163 is quite terrifying. :-)
[15:15:04] <Zash> :|
[15:15:14] <Zash> !xep 163
[15:15:14] <Kanchil> Zash: XEP-0163: Personal Eventing Protocol is Standards Track (Draft, 2007-09-26) See: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0163.html
[15:15:51] <dwd> Zash, If you use a group "parent" to do access control, it's not going to do what you think.
[15:16:01] <Zash> Yes
[15:16:10] <dwd> Zash, "luckily", as far as I know, no PEP implementations allow you to do access control.
[15:16:22] <deryni> 0083 is just ugly
[15:16:42] <Zash> Is there any client which supports that?
[15:21:37] <louiz> dwd, right, that's me. I did work a lot on it lately, I did some other stuff...
[15:21:59] <louiz> I'll be back on that once I finished the other thing I'm working on
[15:32:51] * Treebilou joined the chat.
[15:37:25] * hawke left the chat.
[15:37:29] * hawke joined the chat.
[15:43:33] * Florob left the chat.
[15:49:24] <Zash> Wth, aim has facebook chat now too?
[15:52:46] * Xificurk left the chat.
[15:53:06] * Xificurk joined the chat.
[15:57:33] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[16:02:20] * evilotto joined the chat.
[16:15:41] * tofu left the chat.
[16:16:33] * tofu joined the chat.
[16:44:16] <louiz> tracker.xmpp.org is down :(
[16:49:09] * waqas left the chat.
[16:50:46] * steve-e joined the chat.
[17:01:11] <bear> i'm looking into why tracker is down
[17:01:27] <Kev> Thanks bear.
[17:01:38] <bear> if I can remember how to sudo ... ;)
[17:04:07] * Tobias joined the chat.
[17:07:49] <bear> ok, jira restarted
[17:07:50] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[17:07:58] <bear> looking at logs to see what happened
[17:08:14] * lastsky left the chat.
[17:15:02] * bjc joined the chat.
[17:29:15] * Florob joined the chat.
[17:34:56] * Guus joined the chat.
[17:48:26] * Tobias left the chat.
[17:55:55] * Tobias joined the chat.
[17:58:37] * Gu1 joined the chat.
[18:21:47] * hawke left the chat.
[18:21:49] * hawke joined the chat.
[18:37:06] * waqas joined the chat.
[18:41:12] * mlundblad joined the chat.
[18:49:54] * tofu left the chat.
[18:50:08] * tofu joined the chat.
[19:07:59] * Ludovic joined the chat.
[19:22:37] * Gu1 left the chat.
[19:22:42] * gu1ll4um3r0m41n joined the chat.
[19:22:55] * bernd-h joined the chat.
[19:23:00] * gu1ll4um3r0m41n in now known as Gu1.
[19:23:09] * bernd-h left the chat.
[19:40:07] * jkhii joined the chat.
[19:41:19] <Tobias> mlundblad: well..i don't know what their exact plans are but we can always create an issue at their project page to request
them fixing it
[19:41:20] <Tobias> :)
[19:41:45] <mlundblad> hehe :)
[20:00:37] * McKael joined the chat.
[20:07:45] * Ludovic left the chat.
[20:14:36] * hawke left the chat.
[20:15:30] * hawke joined the chat.
[20:18:50] <Florob> no logs?
[20:20:10] <Florob> hah... found them in the hidden lair
[20:24:26] * tofu left the chat.
[20:24:36] * Gu1 left the chat.
[20:26:37] * gu1ll4um3r0m41n joined the chat.
[20:31:55] * deryni left the chat.
[20:41:39] * ermine left the chat.
[21:02:29] * Florob left the chat.
[21:06:45] <Guus> Hey, we just released Openfire 3.7.0 beta
[21:06:46] <Guus> http://community.igniterealtime.org/blogs/ignite/2010/08/26/openfire-370-beta-is-released
[21:07:08] <Tobias> yay
[21:07:15] <Guus> my thoughts exactly
[21:07:50] <Tobias> well...actually that depends on the changelog :P
[21:08:47] <Tobias> Guus: btw: does openfire use its own SASL stack or some third party one?
[21:15:07] <Guus> Tobias: most of it is implemented by Jive Software, I believe
[21:15:19] <Guus> didn't touch that code ever, so I'd have to check to be absolutely sure
[21:15:24] <Tobias> k
[21:15:32] * hawke left the chat.
[21:15:34] <Guus> but I'm looking at all kinds of references to internal classes, not external libs
[21:15:39] <waqas> It used javax.security.sasl.* IIRC
[21:16:05] <Tobias> waqas: that doesn't come with java right?
[21:16:14] * hawke joined the chat.
[21:16:50] <waqas> It does, AFAIK
[21:17:09] <Guus> waqas is right
[21:17:16] <Guus> I missed that in my quick browse
[21:29:53] * mlundblad_netbook joined the chat.
[21:39:34] <louiz> I have a question about the MUST/SHOULD in XEPs. Why do some XEP allow implementations to break interoperability by using
SHOULDs?
[21:40:45] <johnny> you should probably mention a few specific examples
[21:41:23] <johnny> perhaps there's a good reason, perhaps just an oversight, might be a different answer for each
[21:41:24] <louiz> the SHOULD in XEP 0045 stating that a message SHOULD have a type "groupchat"
[21:41:29] <louiz> why is that not a MUST?
[21:41:43] <johnny> i bet you'll get a specific answer to that one :)
[21:44:15] <louiz> that'd be great :)
[21:46:11] <Zash> If it says SHOULD, then it's not breaking spec to leave it out if you have a good reason
[21:46:48] <louiz> then no implementation can rely on it.
[21:46:53] <louiz> Then it's useless.
[21:49:41] <MattJ> louiz, no, you're entirely able to rely on it
[21:49:46] * mlundblad_netbook left the chat.
[21:50:06] <louiz> then what Zash said isn't true, no?
[21:50:09] <MattJ> But if another implementation chooses not to follow the SHOULD, then they MUST be aware of the consequences
[21:51:52] <louiz> Then, not ignoring a SHOULD breaks interoperability, because other implementations relying on this will not interoperate...
[21:51:58] <louiz> -not
[21:53:24] <MattJ> Yes, it MAY indeed, that's why you SHOULD NOT break it :)
[21:54:28] <louiz> ok :) But I still don't understand the purpose of a SHOULD :)
[21:55:46] * mlundblad left the chat.
[21:55:56] <MattJ> There may be valid reasons to send messages of other types in a MUC, and the XEP doesn't say you can't use them, you just
have to be aware of the implications if you do that
[21:57:07] <louiz> But in that case, the implication is "clients will ignore your message" :/
[21:57:21] <MattJ> Yep, it might be
[21:57:53] <MattJ> So why anyone would break that rule, I don't know, but there may still exist circumstances (where they know the clients are
designed to handle it, etc.)
[21:58:21] <louiz> But a XEP saying "by the way, you're authorized to do something that doesn't work" is obvious. You don't need a "should" of
the XEP to do something that doesn't work :p
[21:59:06] <hawke> It’s not that it doesn’t work…
[21:59:31] <hawke> …just that its working or not becomes dependent on the specific client(s) (and possibly server)
[22:00:20] <louiz> but a MUST has the same effect
[22:02:30] <louiz> It will work only with specific clients that ALSO doesn't follow the XEP
[22:02:34] <louiz> I don't see the difference
[22:03:04] <waqas> louiz: Where does the MUC XEP say SHOULD for "groupchat"?
[22:04:20] <MattJ> Wha, it's waqas
[22:05:18] <louiz> waqas, hum, you're right: nowhere :/ I thought I read something like that, but I'm wrong.
[22:05:38] <louiz> My example is wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that sometimes I don't see why it's not a MUST
[22:07:53] <louiz> I must be confusing this one with an other spec...
[22:10:43] <waqas> MUST would work if XEPs were supposed to be set in stone, but there are often valid reasons for implementations to not follow
SHOULDs, and the XEPs themselves can change.
[22:31:24] * Tobias left the chat.
[22:38:32] <johnny> that's why i'm glad there were versions added to xmlns
[22:38:49] * Tobias joined the chat.
[22:39:18] <waqas> Which are not without problems
[22:45:03] * deryni joined the chat.
[22:57:53] * steve-e left the chat.
[23:12:49] * Link Mauve left the chat.
[23:21:46] * Guus left the chat.
[23:27:55] * evilotto left the chat.
[23:37:23] * Tobias left the chat.
[23:48:45] * hawke left the chat.
[23:53:06] * bjc left the chat.
[00:12:15] * Zash left the chat.
[00:32:56] * MattJ left the chat.
[00:41:28] * jkhii left the chat.
[00:54:34] * waqas left the chat.
[00:54:39] * gu1ll4um3r0m41n left the chat.
[01:19:08] * Florob joined the chat.
[02:15:33] * Florob left the chat.
[02:33:48] * Treebilou left the chat.
[04:37:58] * evilotto joined the chat.