Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
This is an ejabberd issue. One potential solution would be for them to
implement
Message Mine'ing: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/mine.html
Original comment by hil...@gmail.com
on 3 Dec 2008 at 3:31
One difference that I have noticed is that the Spark client is using PLAIN
authentication and the Jabber-Net library is using <auth mechanism="DIGEST-MD5"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl" />
A second difference that I noticed is that
Spark is establishing a session using:
<iq id="J74ma-1" type="set">
<session xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-session"/>
</iq>
and Jabber-Net is using:
<iq id="JN_2" type="set" to="v-doc-imchat.infoassure.local">
<session xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-session" />
</iq>
I don't know if including the 'to' attribute matters or not.
Original comment by BCaseyHa...@gmail.com
on 3 Dec 2008 at 3:41
What puzzles me is why messages are being delivered to Spark clients and not to
the
Jabber-Net baised client. Could you give details to why you believe this is an
eJabberd issue. If the behavior was happening with both the Spark Client and
with
my client based on the Jabber-Net Libary then I would conclude that the issue
lies
with eJabberd.
I did the following experiment:
Using just 2 clients
1) IM custom (logged in as source@server/custom)
2) IM custom (logged in as destination@server/custom)
if #1 sends the following message
<message id="JN_17" to="destination@server/custom" type="chat"
from="source@server/custom">
<thread>da19059b-dbdb-48bd-8b2b-8deac4ce58c0</thread>
<body>Test Message 1</body>
</message>
The message is delivered to #2 as it should be.
But if #1 sends the following message
<message id="JN_17" to="destination@server" type="chat"
from="source@server">
<thread>da19059b-dbdb-48bd-8b2b-8deac4ce58c0</thread>
<body>Test Message 2</body>
</message>
The message is NOT delivered to (#2) when it should be
This leads me to believe that the issue is not, per . . .
At the time of original writing of this XEP, many XMPP servers handle message
stanzas sent to a user@host (or "bare") JID with no resource by delivering that
message only to the resource with the highest priority for the target user
that the message is only being sent to the highest priority becuase there is
ONLY
one recieving user logged on.
Thanks,
Casey
Original comment by BCaseyHa...@gmail.com
on 3 Dec 2008 at 3:52
Once I determined that the issue was related to the routing of the Message
packets
in general I started experimenting with Direct Invitation to a room as defined
in:
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0249.html
When I did this I got the following unexpected result:
Using just 2 clients
1) IM custom (logged in as source@server\custom)
2) IM Spark (logged in as destination@server\spark)
When I send the message:
<message id="JN_23" from="source@server\custom"
to="destination@server\spark"><x
jid="room1@server" xmlns="jabber:x:conference" /></message>
The response I get is:
<message from='destination@server\spark' to='source@server/custom' type='error'
id='JN_23'><x jid='room1@server' xmlns='jabber:x:conference'/><error code='404'
type='cancel'><remote-server-not-found xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-
stanzas'/></error></message>
Using the same two clients when I send the message:
<message id="JN_23" from="source@server\custom" to="destination@server"><x
jid="room1@server" xmlns="jabber:x:conference" /></message>
the message is delivered just fine
This surprised be a little. So something is going on that is resulting in:
1) messages where the to attribute includes the Resource in NOT being delivered
to
SPARK clients
2) messages where the to attribute excludes the Resource in NOT being delivered
to
my custom client that uses the Jabber-Net library
Original comment by BCaseyHa...@gmail.com
on 3 Dec 2008 at 7:06
Thus . . .
1) messages are delivered to the Spark client only if the to attribute excludes
the
Resource
2) messages are delivered to my custom client that uses the Jabber-net libary
ONLY
if the to attribute includes the Resource
Original comment by BCaseyHa...@gmail.com
on 3 Dec 2008 at 7:09
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
BCaseyHa...@gmail.com
on 3 Dec 2008 at 3:09