Communication while Editing. - Kollaborative Frame

Message from discussion Communication while Editing.
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of grega...@gmail.com designates 209.85.200.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.200.173;
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to
         :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
         :content-disposition:message-id;
        b=qWvAnHiHpJPwiUvMSL9p+eANQb9PDuzmG4pAnnHzw0pxWp/OJywjLdnI/qrnTU6v0x
         G8VBrdHuznYEQDHJr9MLYd0GQOQAgJNyKIPQjEGPuqxp8kmiYqc9GSYqxmP4Dp+qF3H1
         yfjySFcYY6A6Ns7lm13Vv44rjieHDdQPBJZOc=
Sender: Gregory Haynes <grega...@gmail.com>
From: Gregory Haynes <g...@greghaynes.net>
To: kollaborative-frame@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Communication while Editing.
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 19:18:57 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.11.3 (Linux/2.6.29-ARCH; KDE/4.2.3; x86_64; ; )
References: <3246ed240905292242nef76a4ch6a425e7449f9a...@mail.gmail.com> <200905300705.27262.g...@greghaynes.net> <3246ed240905300054j335fb6b9k582616025d540...@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3246ed240905300054j335fb6b9k582616025d540...@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <200905301918.57912.g...@greghaynes.net>

On Saturday 30 May 2009 07:54:16 Roger Pixley wrote:
> 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
> this is possible but then would the user have a channel per document witn
> one extra covering the whole server?  If that's possible that's the second
> best outcome I can think of (The best being able to have a group chat
> without tying it toa document that way you can have a group of users
> chatting which can be tied to 0 1 or many documents)

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 
feature request for document level chat should be forwarded to them?

>
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Gregory Haynes <g...@greghaynes.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday 30 May 2009 05:42:55 Roger Pixley wrote:
> > > Sending this out to the list to garner some mindmash. Currently
> >
> > libinfinity
> >
> > > (and hence libqinfinity) supports communication by Jabber on a server
> > > level.
> >
> > 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
> > to Armin to make sure this is correct.
> >
> > > 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 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.
> > >
> > > So having said that I think that a proposal currently to implemt proper
> > > channels and identifucation would be thrown out right away as something
> >
> > too
> >
> > > disruptive to do now.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > If anyone has another solution to the issue or sees the issue in a
> > > different light please reply and lets have a discussion :)
> > >
> > > Roger Pixley
> > > Sharer of Sentiments
> > > Kollaborator of Konsiderations
> >
> > --
> > Gregory Haynes
>
> 
-- 
-Gregory Haynes