|
|
Kollaborative Frame |
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)
> 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