Hi,
Can support for the gateway categories be added. This will work better than hardcoded URL prefixes in clients such as Coccinella.
Example XML:
<identity category=‘gateway’ type=‘msn’/>
What? =) It -does- support that:
Am I missing something?
What are you seeing when you query one of the gateways?
Also what do you mean by hardcoded urls?
Ooh, I did notice from that URL though that I am naming the gadu-gadu transport “gadugadu” instead of gadu-gadu. I should adjust that. =)
Yes, you’re right, I was sleeping when testing Anyway, I found a bug: for the Gadu-Gadu transport it says gateway/gadugadu…you forgot the hyphen.
Indeed Why doesn’t this forum support real-time Web 2.0 Publish-Subscribe based updates, the lack of this feature feels so prehistoric!
LOL i’m waiting for posts to be written just with me -thinking- about it
I’ll probably ping Peter at some point to register the couple of other services that aren’t in the official registry, but renaming gadugadu to gadu-gadu is now : GATE-424
Thanks!
btw, why is there a separate entity for Google Talk? Isn’t “XMPP Transport” good enough? And why not allow the end user to set its server domain, as is possible with J2J? Of course you shouldn’t ask for the domain name; only ask for the contact id, e.g. stpeter@jabber.org This would make everything more userfriendly IMO. And also allow multiple registrations for the same contact (can be applied to all transports).
I already pinged stpeter a few times, but more pings may help.
gtalk is different because it has a number of different isms about it and a lot of admins acknowledge it as something totally different than regular XMPP. I don’t really need to have a separate disco identity for it, but from the admin console point of view and other assorted functionalities, I treat it semi-differently.
Also, multiple registrations is far more involved than it seems like it ought to be. When the time comes to work on that (there’s a jira issue for it), I’ll be writing an XEP alongside it.
Still not convinced this is a good solution. If Google Talk does something different than in the specs, this is a bug. No workaround should be made but the bugs should be reported (e.g. http://coccinella.im/node/93 ). Regarding the email notifications; is this feature worth a dedicated entry for Google Talk? Isn’t it better to get this email notifications feature standardized in some way so that it can be used for other servers too?
It may well be better if it were standardized, but my goal isn’t to tell Google what to do, it’s to make it so my users of the IM Gateway plugin can get the functionality they want from Google Talk. =)
Maybe next page can inspire you to do something similar?
http://coccinella.im/third-party-issues
PS: the Google Talk issues are not yet listed as I first need to verify if the issues are still unfixed. It may take a long time until I find time to do this testing though…