I do have time also to be a ''regular user'' . Feel free to contact me as neeeded. Bravo! Bruno
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Alfredo Abambres <alfredoabamb...@gmail.com > wrote: > Thank you Bruno for trying to make this. I can't be much of assistance on > this point, but if you need a "regular user" to help you test it, just wave > :-) > > http://alfredo.abambres.com > > *"Moving, always moving, and living inside movement". Rainer Maria Rilke* > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) < > sten...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Right now, in part due to its alpha state, and in part due to bugs (I > can't > > receive newBlip notifications, etc), emails are only sent when the user > > writes "bot:send\n". At that very moment, the bot sends a single email. > > > > Regarding synchronization schedule, we could keep a list of "blips not > yet > > synced to email", each of which would have a timeout. Whenever the blip > > contents is edited, the blip timeout gets reset. Blips that reach the > > timeout command the bot to sync themselves. Having that basic mechanism, > > there can be additional rules (for example, all ancestors of a blip have > to > > be synced before the child blip is synced. stuff like that). > > > > The timeout period could be configurable, and we can take existing > > platforms are a reference. Some examples: > > - GMail's "undo" (the atrophied uncle of Wave's "edit") used to be > > customizable from 0 to 30 seconds. Recently they increased the limit to > 60 > > seconds. > > - Some forums and social networks allow to choose "inmediate" (zero > > seconds) and "daily"/"weekly" (timeout-less cronjobs). > > - Wiki software often includes a manual checkbox to force/prevent > > notification messages (so either no wait, or infinite wait). > > - IM services always operate with zero seconds. > > - Funnily enough, I can't remember what the options were for Google > Wave. > > I think weekly/daily/hourly? > > - Etc. > > > > Personally, given Wave's nature, I'm inclined to think this should be a > > per-wave setting (or per wave #tag, or st). There's no single timeout > that > > will satisfy the numerous Wave use cases, so forcing the user to choose > one > > (when the bot is added to the wave) miiight be a good idea. > > Anyway, this is an endemic issue of the Wave concept: so far nobody has > > come up with a way to differentiate and adapt Wave's behaviour to the > many > > different communication platforms it can mimic for each specific wave. > > Traditional communications forms differentiate themselves by forcing the > > user to choose different clients each time (chat client vs forum URL vs > > email software vs social network app vs...). Wave eliminates that barrier > > but provides no way to build the barrier again when it's needed. > > > > > > Automatically detecting "too big" changes shouldn't be too hard, I > briefly > > experimented with it this afternoon: store the plaintext character count > in > > each blip's metadata field (the [mailllist-bot?...] string thingie) when > > the blip is synced; and don't sync again unless the count has changed X > > percent and/or Y units. > > > > > > > > As for federation, I have no idea really. I believe that email > > synchronization is something requested by a big percentage of wave users, > > so bundling it with wiab by default, and making it easy and > straightfoward > > to use, can make a lot of sense for Wave's future. Also, you eliminate > the > > dependency from third party servers (I bet most GoogleWave-era bots are > now > > offline...). > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > Bruno, > > > > > > This looks quite cool. > > > > > > The main thing I am thinking is how 'big' an event has to be before > > > triggering sending an email. (A spelling correction is hardly worth > > > it) > > > We also don't want a large sequence of emails being sent for changes > > > happening within a few seconds of each other (think simultaneous > > > editing of a large wave), so some sort of time threshold will need to > > > be considered. > > > > > > Regarding federation, where should the bot be (presumably on the > > > server hosting the wave)? > > > > > > Anyway, keep up the work on this. > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > PS. I suspect infrastructure should be able to put in a special rule > > > to allow this mail if we can designate some 'official' bot from a > > > particular server. > > > > > > On 7 June 2013 22:48, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) <sten...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > So I've been working on this for the past days. Still a > > work-in-progress, > > > > and will need at least another week of development hours (read: 2-4 > > weeks > > > > of actual time) before we can really think about migrating to wave. > > > > > > > > The apache mailing list is rejecting the emails from my bot, it > thinks > > > > they're spam. So for the time being, here's a screenshot-based > preview: > > > > http://imgur.com/a/GtGY6 > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Saludos, > > > > Bruno González > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com > > > > http://www.stenyak.com > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Saludos, > > Bruno González > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com > > http://www.stenyak.com > > > -- Alain Levesque Wavewatchers Wavyemailbeta:* * *Web Page <http://albonobo.com/> *
