Posted by Z_God at 2005-04-21 21:04:14

When I try send too many characters in a groupchat, they are displayed in my own window in Psi as if they were send without problems. The others do not receive the message though.

I would expect some feedback instead though.

It would be nice if the feedback message said that it failed because it is too large and also include the the maximum number of characters in the message. (In Netscape AIM it is possible to get the 'room properties' and see what the character limit for a message is.

An alternative would be letting the transport split up large message automaticly in smaller messages when sending them to the server, so that they all pass the character limit.

Posted by jadestorm at 2005-09-12 12:57:24

Yeah I was looking at that in the gaim source code. Interestingly enough, I didn't see where it actually accounted for this itself. It just seems to let the error happen and at least tell you the error. I'm not sure what the best route of split or yell is. If you intended for your message to be on one line, then you might be annoyed that it got split. But then, if you sent a large message and it bounced, you'd be annoyed that it didn't send. Hrm... I think letting it send, split up, is the best course of action. At the end of the day, the jabber client probably isn't going to be the one to limit them, so they're not going to have a good concept of what the character limit is and, as such, will be confused when it punts on their long messages.

Posted by Z_God at 2005-09-13 12:48:00

Hmm, when sending really large messages be sure to look out not to flood the chat though, as AIM might not like this. In most cases there will probably only be two messages after the split, but some people might try to send enough for 10 messages at once which AIM probably will not accept.

Posted by jadestorm at 2005-09-21 11:46:49

Maybe I shouldn't split it up. Maybe, instead, I should make full use of the MUC protocol and indicate the max message size of the room. Then clients could take a clue and limit how much a person can type in... or cause an error. That's the issue I guess... is it better to spit back an error or to possibly flood them offline. If I just send the messages and let rate limiting handle it, then it could be actually "worse" or something if the messages arrive oddly. If they arrive split up someone might be answering pieces of it before the whole thing gets there. I dunno. I'm leaning back towards error and MUC telling them what to do. Still.. argh.. lol

Posted by Z_God at 2005-09-22 17:31:07

Well, doing it through MUC seems like a nice solution. I don't know what would happen in a client that wouldn't support/ignore it. Maybe you could send an error message back to the person in that case (maybe even in the room?).