Logs for jdev

Show join/part/nick changes:

[05:46:50] * waqas left the chat.
[06:07:39] * jonas joined the chat.
[06:14:24] * Alex joined the chat.
[06:32:59] * teo1 left the chat.
[06:33:00] * teo1 joined the chat.
[07:27:32] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[07:28:29] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[07:31:52] * teo1 left the chat.
[07:31:54] * teo1 joined the chat.
[07:34:14] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[08:05:23] * Guus joined the chat.
[08:07:38] * Zash joined the chat.
[08:07:43] * Zash left the chat.
[08:08:43] * Zash joined the chat.
[08:13:34] * Guus left the chat.
[08:18:21] * Guus joined the chat.
[08:20:53] * jonas_ joined the chat.
[08:21:59] * Zash left the chat.
[08:22:04] * Zash joined the chat.
[08:22:29] * jonas left the chat.
[08:22:54] * scippio joined the chat.
[08:23:06] * jonas_ in now known as jonas.
[08:26:16] * jugg joined the chat.
[08:41:23] * Zash left the chat.
[08:42:23] * john joined the chat.
[08:42:35] * Link Mauve joined the chat.
[08:45:39] * Tobias joined the chat.
[08:48:55] * Zash joined the chat.
[08:51:13] * will.thompson joined the chat.
[08:51:56] * will.thompson left the chat.
[09:02:01] * ermine joined the chat.
[09:11:12] * dwd left the chat.
[09:24:30] * tkoski joined the chat.
[10:05:12] * Zash left the chat.
[10:16:23] * MattJ joined the chat.
[10:32:26] * niekie left the chat.
[10:32:28] * niekie joined the chat.
[10:43:41] * Zash joined the chat.
[10:45:11] * Florob joined the chat.
[10:47:20] * will.thompson joined the chat.
[10:48:19] * will.thompson left the chat.
[10:49:06] * niekie left the chat.
[10:49:18] * niekie joined the chat.
[12:09:22] * Zash left the chat.
[12:09:25] * Zash joined the chat.
[12:18:59] * Treebilou joined the chat.
[13:42:16] <louiz> is this room publicly logged? I see no warning when entering the room. But logs are available here: http://logs.jabber.org/jdev@conference.jabber.org/
[13:42:31] <louiz> though, no recent logs are available. So the question would be: is this room STILL logged?
[13:42:43] <MattJ> Short answer: yes
[13:43:54] <louiz> But where are the logs? :o
[13:44:18] <Tobias> logs.jabber.org/new
[13:44:52] <louiz> oh ok, thanks.
[13:45:26] <louiz> I just wanted to know if I could use this room for the screenshots of my clients :p Now I know that I can.
[14:00:07] * Alex left the chat.
[14:16:26] * will.thompson joined the chat.
[14:16:38] * will.thompson left the chat.
[14:16:58] * will.thompson joined the chat.
[14:21:22] * will.thompson left the chat.
[14:23:13] * jonas left the chat.
[14:24:14] * jonas joined the chat.
[14:25:54] * louiz left the chat.
[14:25:57] * louiz joined the chat.
[14:26:30] <louiz> well, I don't seem to receive any warning about the room being publicly logged :/
[14:26:46] <louiz> not even a <status code=170 />
[14:26:58] <Kev> The room doesn't know that it's publicly logged.
[14:27:12] <louiz> ah
[14:27:37] <louiz> it's logged by a bot or something?
[14:28:01] <Kev> The room is privately logged, and then I have some xslt, rsync and cronjobs to pull stuff out of the server's archive onto the web.
[14:28:30] <louiz> OK. Then the warning is just in the topic :p
[14:28:52] * will.thompson joined the chat.
[14:29:02] * teo1 left the chat.
[14:29:19] <Zash> why doesn't the topic poin to current logs?
[14:29:24] * will.thompson left the chat.
[14:30:45] * Guus left the chat.
[14:32:15] * niekie left the chat.
[14:34:05] <Zash> oh, would you look at that! http://github.com/cswetenham/js2lua
[14:34:27] <Tobias> Zash: because no one set it to the new log
[14:41:42] * will.thompson joined the chat.
[14:42:13] <will.thompson> sorry for bounciness, train-3g at work ;'(
[14:45:19] <MattJ> will.thompson, XEP-0198, XEP-0198, XEP-0198... :)
[14:45:27] * tofu joined the chat.
[14:47:50] * tofu left the chat.
[14:47:59] <jonas> !xep 198
[14:48:00] <Kanchil> jonas: XEP-0198: Stream Management is Standards Track (Draft, 2009-06-17) See: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0198.html
[14:50:32] <MattJ> jonas, allows you resume a dropped connection
[14:50:36] <MattJ> among other things
[14:52:30] <louiz> that's nice :o
[14:52:56] <MattJ> +1
[14:55:22] <MattJ> I'm just trying to get client devs to implement it :)
[14:55:37] <Tobias> heh
[14:55:51] <jonas> MattJ, how is it going?
[14:55:53] * bjc joined the chat.
[14:56:02] <louiz> I did read the XEP (not the time). Does this involve work in current servers (ejabberd, prosody, etc), or is it already possible?
[14:56:10] <louiz> it did NOT read the XEP*
[14:56:11] <MattJ> jonas, ask Tobias - he's adding it to Psi :)
[14:56:26] <MattJ> louiz, it requires server support
[14:56:36] <jonas> i mean, how many have you convinsed? :p
[14:56:57] <MattJ> jonas, they all think it's a good thing to do, but getting anyone to actually DO it... :)
[14:57:07] <louiz> ok
[14:57:42] <MattJ> But it looks like Psi is going to be first
[14:57:47] <MattJ> But sadly I don't use Psi
[14:58:20] <Zash> :(
[14:58:27] <MattJ> My library already supports it though, since I used that to test the server implementation
[14:58:37] <louiz> What is your lib?
[14:58:45] <MattJ> http://code.matthewwild.co.uk/verse
[14:58:46] <Tobias> verse
[14:58:52] <louiz> oh, ok yeah.
[14:59:17] <louiz> But prosody in itself doesn't support that, does it?
[14:59:18] <Kev> MattJ: Swift's committed to doing it, just need some other stuff doe first.
[14:59:33] <Tobias> louiz: there're modules for it
[14:59:46] <louiz> great
[14:59:53] <MattJ> I'm still considering writing a XEP-0198 proxy
[15:00:03] <MattJ> So you would connect to localhost with your client
[15:00:08] <Tobias> louiz: and after some nagging they even worked quite good :D
[15:00:18] <MattJ> and it would automatically reconnect to the server for you if you got disconnected
[15:00:27] <Tobias> MattJ: what if you have lost packets and unstable connection to localhost? :)
[15:00:43] <MattJ> Tobias, then you should stop using Windows? :)
[15:00:43] <Kev> That's backwards though, you need to have the 198 proxy on the same machine as the server, not as the client.
[15:00:51] <Kev> Oh, right.
[15:00:55] <Kev> You mean to get client support.
[15:01:05] <MattJ> Kev, we /could/ do it both sides :P
[15:01:06] <Kev> I was thinking of using it to get server support.
[15:01:18] <MattJ> But it's easier if people just switch their servers to Prosody, really :)
[15:01:27] <Kev> Yeeeeees.
[15:01:32] <Zash> Let's have it on every switch and router on teh intarwebz!
[15:01:41] <MattJ> Working on it!
[15:01:42] <louiz> Yes, I'm willing to…
[15:02:01] <MattJ> We've actually been discussing adding SCTP support
[15:02:08] <MattJ> that should make things interesting :)
[15:02:39] <jonas> shouldnt SCTP be added to XMPP first? (or is it being added?)
[15:02:47] <MattJ> Added where?
[15:02:54] <Tobias> i guess he means in the RFC
[15:02:55] <jonas> as some kind of spec
[15:03:01] <jonas> yes i do indeed
[15:03:04] <MattJ> and what would the spec say about it?
[15:03:06] <Tobias> but we should test in in the field first imo
[15:03:28] <jonas> like "please use port x" and some things about the channels i would assume
[15:03:41] <MattJ> I'd imagine it would just use the same ports
[15:03:52] <MattJ> and SRV records are obvious... _xmpp-*._sctp
[15:03:53] <jonas> that's probably, but not specified
[15:04:27] <MattJ> I still don't really see that it needs to be
[15:04:43] <jonas> also about channels, what can be sent and how, and wher things can be replied and where not, could be written about
[15:05:16] <jonas> there is for TCP, then there should be for SCTP as well
[15:06:24] * will.thompson left the chat.
[15:07:27] <MattJ> But there's nothing in XMPP that depends on TCP, and SCTP is less of a step than say, BOSH
[15:07:32] <Tobias> jonas: but yeah..if things been tested and so RFC/XEP describing usage and discussing the situation might be useful
[15:08:18] <jonas> yes, i agree :)
[15:08:26] <MattJ> Good :)
[15:14:26] * teo1 joined the chat.
[15:15:54] * john left the chat.
[15:18:38] * will.thompson joined the chat.
[15:24:32] * hawke joined the chat.
[15:26:12] * will.thompson left the chat.
[15:26:15] * will.thompson joined the chat.
[15:39:09] * john joined the chat.
[15:41:13] * john left the chat.
[15:44:17] * jonas left the chat.
[15:47:32] * jugg left the chat.
[15:54:16] * jonas joined the chat.
[15:57:11] * will.thompson left the chat.
[16:08:57] * Tobias left the chat.
[16:08:58] * Tobias joined the chat.
[16:16:59] * Florob left the chat.
[16:17:02] * Florob joined the chat.
[16:23:50] * tkoski left the chat.
[16:25:16] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[16:27:37] * john joined the chat.
[16:50:41] * scippio left the chat.
[16:53:28] * SteveG joined the chat.
[16:53:53] * Guus joined the chat.
[17:00:32] * louiz left the chat.
[17:06:00] * john left the chat.
[17:14:58] * niekie joined the chat.
[17:29:30] * mlundblad_netbook joined the chat.
[17:39:51] * louiz joined the chat.
[17:46:39] * darco joined the chat.
[18:08:49] * scippio joined the chat.
[18:19:17] * mlundblad_netbook left the chat.
[18:55:17] * Guus left the chat.
[18:55:51] * steve-e joined the chat.
[20:09:48] * mlundblad_netbook joined the chat.
[20:12:47] * Zash left the chat.
[20:13:53] * dwd joined the chat.
[20:15:17] * elmex left the chat.
[20:21:47] * mlundblad_netbook left the chat.
[20:31:53] * bjc left the chat.
[20:35:01] * dwd left the chat.
[20:53:07] * Zash joined the chat.
[21:04:06] * niekie left the chat.
[21:15:00] * zanchin left the chat.
[21:31:23] * Kev left the chat.
[21:37:26] <Zash> Hm, reading about SCTP on wp, it talks about messages and chunks. Does that mean you can put a stanza in a message and you
[21:37:34] <Zash> 'll know when it's been deliverd
[21:39:21] <Tobias> for XMPP it doesn't matter since it's stream oriented
[21:39:42] <Tobias> meaning software uses parsers which can handle incomplete stanzas
[21:44:05] <Zash> if 1 stanza goes in 1 message (which gets split into chunks which go into ip packets) and the stanza isn't handed to the parser untill it's completed ..
[21:46:54] * elmex joined the chat.
[21:48:34] * waqas joined the chat.
[21:57:14] * Link Mauve left the chat.
[22:00:34] <Tobias> SCTP still can guarantee in order delivery of messages
[22:02:19] <Tobias> so it doesn't really matter how you split things up..however one can always experiment to see what works best
[22:20:11] * steve-e left the chat.
[22:24:48] <Zash> But some stanzas could be processed out of order without breaking things right, so some fancy multithreaded routing could be possible :)
[22:33:10] * euklid joined the chat.
[22:33:28] * euklid left the chat.
[22:34:16] * ermine left the chat.
[22:38:50] <Tobias> on a per stream level you have to keep things in order according to RFC
[22:40:47] <darco> As long as the order of stanzas between any two XMPP entities are delivered in order, everything should be OK. You could possibly bend this rule a little bit for presence (ie: possibly dropping a presence update) without causing too much havoc, as long as stanzas never arrive out-of-order.
[22:42:27] <Tobias> yeah..presence has a special role in some sense there
[23:23:12] * ToiToi joined the chat.
[23:24:01] * ToiToi left the chat.
[23:38:15] * waqas left the chat.
[23:38:49] * Zash left the chat.
[23:39:22] * mazen joined the chat.
[23:50:01] * hawke left the chat.
[00:01:52] * Tobias left the chat.
[00:12:49] * mazen left the chat.
[00:23:18] * niekie joined the chat.
[00:35:52] * mazen joined the chat.
[00:46:49] * mazen left the chat.
[01:10:04] * darco left the chat.
[01:17:05] * mazen joined the chat.
[01:32:45] * Florob left the chat.
[01:40:49] * mazen left the chat.
[02:11:32] * MattJ left the chat.
[02:35:49] * bear joined the chat.
[02:38:40] * fantasticsid joined the chat.
[03:02:51] * scippio left the chat.
[03:03:00] * scippio joined the chat.
[03:59:05] * oma joined the chat.
[03:59:05] * oma left the chat.
[03:59:08] * oma joined the chat.
[03:59:26] * oma left the chat.