Hi Ingo,
      On 04/14/2014 08:39 AM, Ingo Bauersachs wrote:
    
      In src/net/java/sip/communicator/service/muc/MUCService.java:
      > @@ -229,8 +229,8 @@ public static boolean isPrivate(ChatRoom chatRoom)
>              {
>                  for (ChatRoomMember member : chatRoom.getMembers())
>                      if (nickname.equals(member.getName()))
> -                        return false;

      Hmm, I don't know whether the heuristic makes sense, but the
        implementation adheres to the documentation: If the user's
        nickname is equal to the name of the only member in the room,
        then the room is NOT private.
      —
        Reply to this email directly or view
          it on GitHub.
    
    I'm currently modifying the implementation, so in that case we don't
    need the patch - as you pointed out.
    I am a bit confused though. If the normal way is to add yourself to
    the chat room, then the isPrivate check doesn't make sense either.
    1. The documentation says "... is private, i.e. represents a
    one-to-one conversation ...".
    2. The documentation continues to say "... and (2) a ChatRoom is
    private if it has only one ChatRoomMember who is not the local
    user." (I probably read this wrongly the first time.)
    This now implies that there are at least and at most 2 members: the
    local user + 1 other person (i.e. person that is not the local
    user). The implementation, however, starts by checking that the chat
    room member count = 1, which doesn't make sense if the local user
    should be added/counted.
    So, it looks like there's some inconsistency in the MUC
    implementation ...