esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vassil Dichev <vdic...@apache.org>
Subject Re: ESME Groups
Date Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:22:18 GMT
There are a couple of things, which I still find confusing:

>  @pool_name *DOES NOT* "send to that pool."
...
> @pool_name a message, that message will be posted to whatever pool it would
...
> d pool_name message

How would you refer to a pool? If it uses the same syntax as for a
user (@ sign), this is not only confusing, but there could be
potential name clashes when pools and users have the same name. If a
pool *is* a user (as in the ad-hoc Twitter groups I described), would
it be less confusing?

> otherwise be put in as well as put in the mailbox of all administrators of
> the named pool as long as those people had access to the pool that message
> was also put in

So if a message can be only in one pool, does it mean it's copied as a
new message (with the same text) or does it mean that it's only sent
with the user's default pool? Judging by the context, it's not
replicated, and then administrators can only see this message if some
of them have access to the pool in which the message belongs. That
means that if none of the administrators have access to the message's
pool, it will be silently ignored. This can't be a good thing, since
the user doesn't have an idea who the administrators are, not to
mention which pools they have access to. Eventually this mandates
sending all messages *to* a pool are sent in the default pool? This
seems to be the only way  to guarantee it can be read by an
administrator.

> This is a direct message to the pool.  This is just like the upcoming direct
> message to a person.  Darren came up with the idea and the semantics are
> perfect.

Direct messages to a person is another thing, which is not clear to
me: are they implemented as a pool, to which only the two sides have
access? If so, the number of pools could be enormous- n * (n-1) / 2
only for direct messages.

I can easily imagine a pool as a list of messages, to which certain
users have access. Still, I find the current description still mixes
up this concept with the one of "pool as a user".

Mime
View raw message