On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 16:49, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Okay, getting back into this. Offering to mentor? Have I your
> permission to add you to the proposal in that capacity?
Yep.
> I would not be averse to this project being attached to a bigger
> project. Did you have a particular one in mi
Okay, getting back into this. Offering to mentor? Have I your
permission to add you to the proposal in that capacity?
I would not be averse to this project being attached to a bigger
project. Did you have a particular one in mind?
Don
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Bernd Fondermann
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 22:23, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Sorry to leave things on a sour note...had family in from college.
>
> Do we want to take this off-channel to discuss details?
Preferrably - no. Let's continue here.
Bernd
--
Sorry to leave things on a sour note...had family in from college.
Do we want to take this off-channel to discuss details?
Don
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Bernd Fondermann
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 16:23, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> So I gather that's a "no" on mentoring.
>
> throws Pa
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 16:23, Donald Whytock wrote:
> So I gather that's a "no" on mentoring.
throws ParseException.
In fact, I'm still volunteering to mentor (if you still want to have me).
I only propose to think about and discuss to move it to an existing
project's sandbox as an alternative t
So I gather that's a "no" on mentoring.
Any other takers?
Don
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Bernd Fondermann
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 00:06, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Bernd Fondermann
>> wrote:
>>> So, what are your short term goals with chatterbot? As
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 00:06, Donald Whytock wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Bernd Fondermann
> wrote:
>> So, what are your short term goals with chatterbot? As you are on the
>> incubator list and put up a proposal, the goal should be to become an
>> Incubator project. Otherwise, we are
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Bernd Fondermann
wrote:
> So, what are your short term goals with chatterbot? As you are on the
> incubator list and put up a proposal, the goal should be to become an
> Incubator project. Otherwise, we are just wasting time here.
> An important part of preparing fo
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 00:43, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Well, it seemed presumptuous to ask about mentors when I hardly had a
> community...but thank you for your consideration. Yes, mentoring
> would be appreciated.
So, what are your short term goals with chatterbot? As you are on the
incubator l
Ignite lists Smack as licensed under the Apache license v2
(http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0), though it's not an
Apache project. I assume that license is revokable by Ignite at any
time? How does incorporating outside code work in Apache projects?
Don
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:43 PM,
Well, it seemed presumptuous to ask about mentors when I hardly had a
community...but thank you for your consideration. Yes, mentoring
would be appreciated.
I tested my XMPP handler against two servers: Google's chat server and
one managed by dreamhost.com. The handler is rudimentary, yes; there
Hi,
What about mentors? I cannot find any note you are actively searching
for them, but maybe I missed that.
As I think about volunteering to mentor, my question is: Against what
server did you test your own XMPP implementation? Does it really work
as it seems to be rudimentary to me. Why didn't
Hello again...
Following is the revised proposal text, as posted on the wiki.
Significant changes are the goals, which now focus on building the
framework around Felix and devising a standard for protocol handlers
to be used both inside and outside the project, and the committer
list, which now in
Sorry for shaking things up, but it sounds like you got the gist of things.
Using OSGi services to wire up Chatterbot makes it much more flexible in
the long run allowing developers/users to plug in alternative
implementations of things if they want to. I'm quite happy to join your
project as a c
I had originally thought that Felix Shell would replace Chatterbot
Listener, but I no longer think so. Felix Shell, as far as I can
tell, is focused around Commands that have single outputs directed
toward their originator; Chatterbot Parsers, in a multiuser
environment, might have multiple output
On 1/29/10 10:38, Donald Whytock wrote:
I have an overview of the current Chatterbot architecture at
http://www.imtower.net/chatterbot/doku.php?id=overview
Chatterbot is different from JMS inasmuch as it's currently built to
receive messages from chat IDs and turn them into messages from
Chatte
I have an overview of the current Chatterbot architecture at
http://www.imtower.net/chatterbot/doku.php?id=overview
Chatterbot is different from JMS inasmuch as it's currently built to
receive messages from chat IDs and turn them into messages from
Chatterbot-internal IDs, and vice versa. My int
Hi,
I have read through the proposal and I like the idea of it.
The only issues I have are around modularity and shell/console. Apache
already has a modularity solution (Felix) based on an open standard (OSGi) I
don't think the Java community as a whole needs yet another modularity
solution. =)
18 matches
Mail list logo
