Project

General

Profile

xep-0191 and Relationship to Privacy Lists issue with storage

Igor Khomenko
Added over 3 years ago

Hi Tigase team,

I read the Relationship to Privacy Lists guide in xep-0191

http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0191.html#privacy

there are 2 things regarding storage:

1. If all of a user's clients always use the blocking command, then the default privacy list will be equivalent to the blocklist and the default privacy list will be a kind of "virtual list" (in the sense that it is never modified directly by any of the clients).
2. If one of a user's clients uses privacy lists instead of blocklists and modifies the default privacy list by removing a blocked JID or blocking a new JID, then that change will be reflected in the blocklist.

But as I see you use different storage for xep-0191 and don't follow the Relationship to Privacy Lists recommendations

https://projects.tigase.org/projects/tigase-server/repository/revisions/master/entry/src/main/java/tigase/xmpp/impl/BlockingCommand.java#L184

Just would like to know what's your view on it

are you going to change this logic or leave as is


Replies (4)

Added by Daniel Wisnewski IoT 1 Cloud over 3 years ago

Tigase did not support XEP-0191 until about 8 months ago. The code and programming was written and improved upon by two contributors to implement basic functionality, however as you have found it is not quite complete. It is something that we are intending to complete and fix, but it is not the highest priority for us at the moment. We do appreciate your findings, and will create a ticket based on these issues.

Added by Igor Khomenko over 3 years ago

Daniel, thank you for your reply

Do you allow the git patches from external developers?

Added by Daniel Wisnewski IoT 1 Cloud over 3 years ago

I don't believe that we do directly, however you can create a new issue/patch ticket in projects.tigase.org and submit them for us to check over and integrate into our server.

Added by Andrzej Wójcik IoT 1 CloudTigaseTeam over 3 years ago

I opened an issue #3690 to verify this implementation.

    (1-4/4)