I think that Bruno's idea was to add the emailing bridge feature built into WIAB. The advantage of using the "agents" framework instead of pure robots is that an agent is auto hosted and auto registered by the wave server. So, every WIAB server will have this feature out of the box. The experiments space is IMHO directed toward Wave related projects but that are not actually supposed to be part of WIAB anytime soon. Which is not the situation with the email bridge bot.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Alfredo Abambres <alfredoabamb...@gmail.com > wrote: > Bruno: > The new https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/experiments/directory > could probably be the best place to host/put this "project", what do you > think? > > http://alfredo.abambres.com > > *"Moving, always moving, and living inside movement". Rainer Maria Rilke* > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) < > sten...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Some background: > > > > The motivation of the bot is mainly to allow migrating the apache-wave > > mailing list discussion into a wave-based platform (so that we can eat > our > > own food). > > > > It's not necessarily my intention to "embed" the bot into WiaB, but that > > has been the easiest route for me. If this could run as a regular bot > (not > > an embedded agent), separate from WiaB, that would be great. Maybe there > > are other solutions better than a robot of any kind. But I haven't had > time > > to experiment that much, and I think it's better to contribute something > > bad than not contributing anything :-) > > > > Given the lack of maturity (or design) of this feature, I'd suggest not > to > > put it in trunk, but maybe in a separate branch. This is up to the > > community to discuss. Either way, I uploaded the branch for code review > > simply because I'd prefer this code to be hosted with the rest of > > wave-related code at apache, rather than wherever is trendy at the moment > > (googlecode, github, etc). > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro > > <zmy...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > Wait—so this is being done with a 'bot, but the 'bot is baked into the > > WIAB > > > server? Might it be better to separate the 'bot out so it can be used > > with > > > hypothetical future wave clients? > > > > > > Please correct me if I misinterpreted your message. > > > > > > —Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro > > > On Jun 19, 2013 2:21 PM, "Yuri Z" <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Saludos, > > Bruno González > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com > > http://www.stenyak.com > > >
