Kollaborative Frame Google Group

Re: Kobby Interest

g...@greghaynes.net (Gregory Haynes) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:12:13 UT

Forwarded from Kollaborative-frame group:
Im completely open to this idea, but from what I can tell about
gitorious it lacks a couple features that we currently use on github
(website hosting and issue tracking). It seems like KDE will inevitably
end up on gitourious, so it would still probably be a good idea to make

Re: Kobby Interest

g...@greghaynes.net (Gregory Haynes) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:10:53 UT

Im completely open to this idea, but from what I can tell about
gitorious it lacks a couple features that we currently use on github
(website hosting and issue tracking). It seems like KDE will inevitably
end up on gitourious, so it would still probably be a good idea to make
the move.
Well need to find replacement hosting for these features before this can

Kobby Interest

skree...@gmail.com (Roger Pixley) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:38:21 UT

Hello I've been trying to feel out receptivity to kollaborative-frame and of
course the implementations currently of kobby and libqinfinity. It seems
that some people are blissfully unaware of it and some others have heard of
it but it's a little off the radar. One thing I have heard from quite a few

Re: Communication while Editing.

skree...@gmail.com (Roger Pixley) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:31:32 UT

Ok I'll make an announcement for it for sprints and general tests. What
other filters have been done for infinote other than Text? Would it be too
forward to say that if a Suite of programs handles formats in a particular
way they should write a filter to allow remote kollaboration throughout the

Re: Communication while Editing.

g...@greghaynes.net (Gregory Haynes) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:24:27 UT

I figured the server had fallen off everyone's radar. It definitely
would be useful for me if it were to be used so I just put it back up:
infinote.greghaynes.net

Re: Communication while Editing.

skree...@gmail.com (Roger Pixley) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:37:31 UT

Wow I"m late on jumping in on this :-) Ok here are my thoughts at least on a
desktop level I've already pitched my concept of clients being able to be
light or heavy servers. I also don't see any reason why they cannot be light
and heavy clients. A heavy client would be one that tries to tie together

Re: Communication while Editing.

g...@greghaynes.net (Gregory Haynes) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:14:48 UT

I have also been researching this new technology and trying to determine its
possible impacts on existing collaborative applications. While Wave seems to
offer a slew of collaborative features, it seems like it would be very difficult
to integrate all of these in a client-side feature-rich editor, like Kate.

Re: Communication while Editing.

mich...@daclubhouse.net (Michael Fair) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:48:40 UT

Creating and joining a MUC (a channel in XMPP speak) is pretty trivial
and definitely should be worked into the architecture.

I just saw a demo of Google WAVE recently and really liked what they
had implemented.
[link]
It really inspired me on a few fronts for what collaboration could be like.

Re: Communication while Editing.

g...@greghaynes.net (Gregory Haynes) — Sun, 31 May 2009 05:17:08 UT

That makes sense. Something else that could be done, is creating a chat
plugin for libinfinity similar to the InfText plugin, but with chat operations
instead of insert/remove text operations. I dont see any reason why this
wouldnt work, and clients which dont recognize the plugin would not be

Re: Communication while Editing.

skree...@gmail.com (Roger Pixley) — Sun, 31 May 2009 03:53:05 UT

Just had a light chat with the devs and they had wanted caht removed from
the API altogether. I have yet to speak to the person (ck) who has final
word on this but I'm thinking that it falls more in ine with the original
submission that I had made of having a light serer that focuses solely on
the document and sharing it and a heavier specification that is much more

Re: Communication while Editing.

g...@greghaynes.net (Gregory Haynes) — Sat, 30 May 2009 19:18:57 UT

I was speaking from a purely API standpoint, my knowledge of jabber is
somewhat lacking. Creating chat outside of a document would mean major
changes to the libinfinity API because user information is specified on a per-
document basis, so im not sure the libinfinity devs would go for this. Maybe a

Re: Communication while Editing.

skree...@gmail.com (Roger Pixley) — Sat, 30 May 2009 07:54:16 UT

On a server level this would certainly mean a major API change, but I dont
see
why this would be difficult to implement on a document level. User
information
is already provided when joining a document, so maybe a chat facility could
be
retrieved after joining a session?

So simply spawn a new Channel? I know it's all Jabber based so technically

Re: Communication while Editing.

g...@greghaynes.net (Gregory Haynes) — Sat, 30 May 2009 07:05:26 UT

I did some digging around in the libinfinity API for communication features,
and AFAICT there are no document or server level user to user chat facilities
in the library. This could be (relatively) easily added on a document level
via a note plugin without having to modify libinfinity. Ill send out a message

Communication while Editing.

skree...@gmail.com (Roger Pixley) — Sat, 30 May 2009 05:42:55 UT

Sending this out to the list to garner some mindmash. Currently libinfinity
(and hence libqinfinity) supports communication by Jabber on a server level.
For quite a few reasons I think that having an option to have it on a
document level is a good idea. If you think of a large assembly such as
Akademy or GCDS (Side Thought: How do you abstract that? *DS?) where you

Re: Kobby

g...@greghaynes.net (Gregory Haynes) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:07:22 UT

Sorry for the slow reply. The meeting-attend.png icon is part of the Oxygen
icon set, so I think it should come with your KDE install?