I think you can go ahead and send a patch.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) < sten...@gmail.com> wrote: > Haven't worked on the bot much these days, but I've cleaned up the commits > so that I can publish what I already have. Keep in mind this is an alpha > version, it lacks many features, has many bugs, etc. > > https://github.com/stenyak/wave/commits/maillist > > The email bot configuration is done directly in code: > src/org/waveprotocol/box/server/robots/agent/AbstractStkRobotAgent.java > After it suits your liking, recompile and run. > > > Usage: > * Add "maillist-bot" address to a wave. > * Whenever you want a blip to be sent as email, write bot:send\n (this > means you press enter) > * The bot will detect this, remove the magic words you just wrote, and > send the email using the configuration specified in the sendEmail function. > > I would be happy to have this code included as a branch in the official > apache-wave repository, but would prefer to be able to directly commit (as > opposed to having to squash several commits together into a .patch file, > send it for review, yadayada). If that's not possible, github would be the > official repo for maillist-bot development. > > Feedback and contributions are welcome! :-) > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Alain Levesque > <albon...@wavewatchers.org>wrote: > > > 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/> > > * > > > > > > -- > Saludos, > Bruno González > > _______________________________________________ > Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com > http://www.stenyak.com >
