|
|
Kollaborative Frame |
On Saturday 30 May 2009 05:42:55 Roger Pixley wrote: > So having said that I think that a proposal currently to implemt proper > If anyone has another solution to the issue or sees the issue in a > Roger Pixley
> Sending this out to the list to garner some mindmash. Currently libinfinity I did some digging around in the libinfinity API for communication features,
> (and hence libqinfinity) supports communication by Jabber on a server
> level.
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
to Armin to make sure this is correct.
> For quite a few reasons I think that having an option to have it on On a server level this would certainly mean a major API change, but I dont see
> 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
> would like an easy one connect server for remote collaborators but then
> having all the chatter for the various projects and problems being
> discussed broadcast to everyone is unbearably confusing. Or further down
> the line when this is KDE wide and many types of clients can connect to it
> (also FOSS now rules the world cause the others ignored then laughed then
> fought ) A fairly large business would want to use something like this
> internally to tie together teams. Even if there is one server per
> department you would want discussions to be more localized to say a group
> or a document.
> channels and identifucation would be thrown out right away as something too
> disruptive to do now.
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?
> My proposal is to allow messages which are sent to be --
> optionally tagged then clients can read the tags on the messages and react
> as they see fit. Clients who have no idea about the tags will just drop
> them Clients who know but don't really care can possibly simply display the
> tags Clients that know and care can create channels or drop entire messages
> of the user doesn't care about them etc.
> different light please reply and lets have a discussion :)
> Sharer of Sentiments
> Kollaborator of Konsiderations
Gregory Haynes