cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira ...@upaya.co.uk>
Subject Re: Whiteboard Tool (was: [RT] FirstFriday - monthly virtual Hackathon
Date Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:35:42 GMT
Just found:

http://sangam.sourceforge.net/

An Eclipse plugin for XP style pair programming. No idea how good it is. 
It requires a server (open source Kizna Syncshare 
<http://www.kizna.org>), which I'm not in a position to install. Anyone 
into trying it out?

Regards, Upayavira

Geoff Howard wrote:

> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, Oct 21, 2003, at 23:19 Europe/Rome, Geoff Howard wrote:
>>
>>> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>>>
>>>> doable? digest this first
>>>>     http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/sun98operational.html
>>>> and come back to me. This is the list of algorithms that they 
>>>> implemented in SubEthaEdit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Been reading it.  Not yet digested... :)
>>
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>> I just finished the section describing the star architecture of 
>>> Jupiter which drastically simplified things.  I also wonder if a 
>>> sort of "row level locking" (well, actually line-level-locking) 
>>> wouldn't do even more.
>>
>>
>> I had the experience of writing on the same line.
>
>
> Ok, you can make the granularity finer - how about the same word?  The 
> point I'm trying to make is that the paper we're digesting is driving 
> at a general pure solution for the most general case.  But I get the 
> feeling that imposing 2-way instead of N-way communication (with the 
> "star" architecture as the Jupiter people did) and possibly 
> implementing a locking algorithm (at the word or line level, whatever) 
> would simplify things to the point that it'd be doable.  We wouldn't 
> earn PhDs for it but we'd probably finish in time to actually use it!
>
> It's the difference between finding a geometric solution to 
> tri-secting an angle vs. measuring the angle and dividing by three.   
> The first has stumped everyone that has tried for about 2,000 years, 
> the second can be done by a 12 year old in a few minutes.
>
>>>   I have the disadvantage of not having ever seen/used SubEthaEdit 
>>> -- is it really that useful to be able to have different people 
>>> editing the same line simultaneously?
>>
>>
>> Yes it is, it is amazing, it's like you never used an editor before.
>
>
> That's what I'm worried about! ;)  I wouldn't know how to be 
> productive if we both started typing different words at the same 
> place, even if the algorithm sorted out what order the letters should 
> go in.
>
>>>> Scary to death, if I have to be honest.
>>>> But *very* intellectually stimulating.
>>>>
>>>>> We might have to put every letter inside a div tag so we can 
>>>>> insert them in strange locations while typing somewhere else, but 
>>>>> what the hell, if it works... :))
>>>>> Anyone in it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think that would be monumentally harder and not any more useful 
>>> than an existing editor which already has a Memento type of 
>>> architecture (which designMode and friends may but don't expose do 
>>> they?)
>>
>>
>> memento-type?
>
>
> I switched names with concepts.  I meant the Command pattern from GoF, 
> where an operation is encapsulated and was mapping this in my mind to 
> the operations O that are referred to throughout the paper.  Having 
> now finished the paper though I think this is not a direct link 
> because the current algorithms only exist for primitive string 
> operations (insert a string at position x), not more complex composite 
> operations (move section a to position y) which I'm assuming would be 
> the Commands implemented by editors (I'm also making the big 
> assumption they do some kind of encapsulation like this...).
>
>>>> Count me in, but this is going to require *massive* thinking, 
>>>> expecially on how to reduce the problems of latency over the network.
>>>
>>>
>>> The last thing I need is something else to play with, but I'm 
>>> interested.  I don't suppose SubEthaEdit is coming out with support 
>>> for other platforms?
>>
>>
>> No, the state this explicitly.
>
>
> Bummer.
>
> Geoff
>
>



Mime
View raw message