From 6211cadb6d83d8130505ec045b80d5390339eda7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Danielle Madeley Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:59:08 +1100 Subject: Include Channel.Interface.Conference draft from tp-spec --- extensions/Channel_Interface_Conference.xml | 400 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ extensions/misc.xml | 1 + 2 files changed, 401 insertions(+) create mode 100644 extensions/Channel_Interface_Conference.xml diff --git a/extensions/Channel_Interface_Conference.xml b/extensions/Channel_Interface_Conference.xml new file mode 100644 index 000000000..af3e627b9 --- /dev/null +++ b/extensions/Channel_Interface_Conference.xml @@ -0,0 +1,400 @@ + + + Copyright © 2009 Collabora Limited + Copyright © 2009 Nokia Corporation + +

This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or + modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public + License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either + version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

+ +

This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, + but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of + MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU + Lesser General Public License for more details.

+ +

You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public + License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software + Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA + 02110-1301, USA.

+ + + (draft 1) + + + + +

An interface for multi-user conference channels that can "continue + from" one or more individual channels.

+ + +

This interface addresses freedesktop.org bug + #24906 (GSM-compatible conference calls) and bug + #24939 (upgrading calls and chats to multi-user). + See those bugs for rationale and use cases.

+ +

Examples of usage:

+ +

Active and held GSM calls C1, C2 can be merged into a single + channel Cn with the Conference interface, by calling + CreateChannel({...ChannelType: ...Call, + ...InitialChannels: [C1, C2]}) + which returns Cn.

+ +

An XMPP 1-1 conversation C1 can be continued in a newly created + multi-user chatroom Cn by calling + CreateChannel({...ChannelType: ...Text, + ...InitialChannels: [C1]}) + which returns Cn.

+ +

An XMPP 1-1 conversation C1 can be continued in a specified + multi-user chatroom by calling + CreateChannel({...ChannelType: ...Text, ...HandleType: ROOM, + ...TargetID: 'telepathy@conf.example.com', + ...InitialChannels: [C1]}) + which returns a Conference channel.

+ +

Either of the XMPP cases could work for Call channels, to + upgrade from 1-1 Jingle to multi-user Muji. Any of the XMPP cases + could in principle work for link-local XMPP (XEP-0174).

+ +

The underlying switchboard representing an MSN 1-1 conversation C1 + with a contact X can be moved to a representation as a nameless + chatroom, Cn, to which more contacts can be invited, by calling + CreateChannel({...ChannelType: ...Text, + ...InitialChannels: [C1]}) + which returns Cn. C1 SHOULD remain open, with no underlying + switchboard attached. If X establishes a new switchboard with the + local user, C1 SHOULD pick up that switchboard rather than letting + it create a new channel. + [FIXME: should it?] + Similarly, if the local user sends a message in C1, then + a new switchboard to X should be created and associated with C1.

+ +

XMPP and MSN do not natively have a concept of merging two or more + channels C1, C2... into one channel, Cn. However, the GSM-style + merging API can be supported on XMPP and MSN, as an API short-cut + for upgrading C1 into a conference Cn (which invites the + TargetHandle of C1 into Cn), then immediately inviting the + TargetHandle of C2, the TargetHandle of C3, etc. into Cn as well.

+ +

With a suitable change of terminology, Skype has behaviour similar + to MSN.

+ + +

The Group MAY have channel-specific handles for participants; + clients SHOULD support both Conferences that have channel-specific handles, + and those that do not.

+ + +

In the GSM case, the Conference's Group interface MAY have + channel-specific handles, to reflect the fact that the identities of + the participants might not be known - it can be possible to know that + there is another participant in the Conference, but not know who + they are. + [FIXME: fact check from GSM gurus needed] +

+ +

In the XMPP case, the Conference's Group interface SHOULD have + channel-specific handles, to reflect the fact that the participants + have MUC-specific identities, and the user might also be able to see + their global identities, or not.

+ +

In most other cases, including MSN and link-local XMPP, the + Conference's Group interface SHOULD NOT have channel-specific + handles, since users' identities are always visible.

+ + +

Connection managers implementing channels with this interface + MUST NOT allow the object paths of channels that could be merged + into a Conference to be re-used, unless the channel re-using the + object path is equivalent to the channel that previously used it.

+ + +

If you upgrade some channels into a conference, and then close + the original channels, InitialChannels + (which is immutable) will contain paths to channels which no longer + exist. This implies that you should not re-use channel object paths, + unless future incarnations of the path are equivalent.

+ +

For instance, on protocols where you can only have + zero or one 1-1 text channels with Emily at one time, it would + be OK to re-use the same object path for every 1-1 text channel + with Emily; but on protocols where this is not true, it would + be misleading.

+ + + + + + +

The individual Channels that + are continued by this conference, which have the same ChannelType as this one, but with TargetHandleType = CONTACT.

+ +

This property MUST NOT be requestable. + [FIXME: or would it be better for this one, and not IC, to be + requestable?] +

+ +

Change notification is via the + ChannelMerged and + ChannelRemoved signals.

+ + + + + +

Emitted when a new channel is added to the value of + Channels.

+ + + + The channel that was added to + Channels. + + + + + +

Emitted when a channel is removed from the value of + Channels, either because it closed + or because it was split using the Splittable.DRAFT.Split method.

+ +

[FIXME: relative ordering of this vs. Closed? Do we + care?]

+ + + + The channel that was removed from + Channels. + + + + + +

The initial value of Channels.

+ +

This property SHOULD be requestable. Omitting it from a request is + equivalent to providing it with an empty list as value. Requests + where its value has at least two elements SHOULD be expected to + succeed on any implementation of this interface.

+ +

Whether a request with 0 or 1 elements in the list will succeed is + indicated by SupportsNonMerges.

+ + +

In GSM, a pair of calls can be merged into a conference. In XMPP + and MSN, you can create a new chatroom, or upgrade one 1-1 channel + into a chatroom; however, on these protocols, it is also possible + to fake GSM-style merging by upgrading the first channel, then + inviting the targets of all the other channels into it.

+ + +

If possible, the Channels' states SHOULD + NOT be altered by merging them into a conference. However, depending on + the protocol, the Channels MAY be placed in a "frozen" state by placing + them in this property's value or by calling + MergeableConference.DRAFT.Merge on them. + [FIXME: there's nothing in RequestableChannelClasses yet + to say what will happen, see #24906 comment 6]

+ + +

In Jingle, nothing special will happen to merged calls. UIs MAY + automatically place calls on hold before merging them, if that is + the desired behaviour; this SHOULD always work. Not doing + an implicit hold/unhold seems to preserve least-astonishment.

+ +

[FIXME: check whether ring supports faking Hold on both + channels, as it probably should: see #24906 comment 6] +

+ +

In GSM, the calls that are merged go into a state similar to + Hold, but they cannot be unheld, only split from the conference + call using Channel.Interface.Splittable.DRAFT.Split.

+ + +

Depending on the protocol, it might be signalled to remote users + that this channel is a continuation of all the requested channels, + or that it is only a continuation of the first channel in the + list.

+ + +

In MSN, the conference steals the underlying switchboard (protocol + construct) from one of its component channels, so the conference + appears to remote users to be a continuation of that channel and no + other. The connection manager has to make some arbitrary choice, so + we arbitrarily mandate that it SHOULD choose the first channel in + the list as the one to continue.

+ + +

This property is immutable.

+ + + + + +

A list of additional contacts invited to this conference when it + was created.

+ +

This property SHOULD be requestable, and appear in the allowed + properties in RequestableChannelClasses, in all connection + managers that can implement its semantics (in practice, this is + likely to mean exactly those connection managers where + SupportsNonMerges will be true).

+ +

If included in a request, the given contacts are automatically + invited into the new channel, as if they had been added with + Group.AddMembers(InitialInviteeHandles, + InvitationMessage immediately after + the channel was created.

+ + +

This is a simple convenience API for the common case that a UI + upgrades a 1-1 chat to a multi-user chat solely in order to invite + someone else to participate.

+ + +

At most one of InitialInviteeHandles and InitialInviteeIDs may + appear in each request.

+ +

If the local user was not the initiator of this channel, the + Group.SelfHandle SHOULD appear in the value of this + property, together with any other contacts invited at the same time + (if that information is known).

+ +

This property is immutable.

+ + + + + +

A list of additional contacts invited to this conference when it + was created.

+ +

This property SHOULD be requestable, as an alternative to + InitialInviteeHandles. Its semantics + are the same, except that it takes a list of the string + representations of contact handles.

+ +

At most one of InitialInviteeHandles and InitialInviteeIDs may + appear in each request.

+ +

When a channel is created, the values of InitialInviteeHandles and + InitialInviteeIDs MUST correspond to each other.

+ +

This property is immutable.

+ + + + + +

The message that was sent to the + InitialInviteeHandles when they were + invited.

+ +

This property SHOULD be requestable, and appear in the allowed + properties in RequestableChannelClasses, in protocols where + invitations can have an accompanying text message.

+ + +

This allows invitations with a message to be sent when using + InitialInviteeHandles or + InitialInviteeIDs.

+ + +

If the local user was not the initiator of this channel, the + message with which they were invited (if any) SHOULD appear in the + value of this property.

+ +

This property is immutable.

+ + + + + +

[FIXME: needs a better name; or perhaps it could be implied + by InitialInviteeHandles being requestable in XMPP/MSN but not in + GSM?]

+ +

If true, requests with InitialChannels + omitted, empty, or one element long should be expected to succeed.

+ +

This property SHOULD appear in RequestableChannelClasses for + conference channels if and only if its value on those channels will + be true.

+ + +

Putting this in RequestableChannelClasses means clients can find + out whether their request will succeed early enough to do + something about it.

+ +

In XMPP, you can request a channel of type ROOM without + incorporating any 1-1 chats at all - indeed, this is the normal + way to do it - or as a continuation of a single 1-1 chat, and then + invite other people in later.

+ +

The sense of this property is a bit awkward, but it avoids making it + an anti-capability. If the sense were inverted, then its presence in + RequestableChannelClasses would imply that the protocol lacks + a feature; as it stands, it is additive. (Contrast with + ImmutableStreams, which is the wrong way around for + backwards-compatibility reasons.)

+ + +

If false, InitialChannels SHOULD be + supplied in all requests for this channel class, and contain at least + two channels. Requests where this requirement is not met SHOULD fail + with NotImplemented. +

+ + +

In GSM, you can only make a conference call by merging at least + two channels. + [FIXME: the CM could conceivably fake it, but that would be + rather nasty] +

+ + + + + + diff --git a/extensions/misc.xml b/extensions/misc.xml index 746cd9074..6eea49a2d 100644 --- a/extensions/misc.xml +++ b/extensions/misc.xml @@ -7,5 +7,6 @@ + -- cgit v1.2.3