incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Email bridge bot
Date Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:21:21 GMT
I think you can go ahead and send a patch.


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) <
stenyak@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
> <albonono@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 <
> > alfredoabambres@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) <
> > > stenyak@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 <ali@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) <
> > stenyak@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
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message