I created a clone and pushed the changes - http://code.google.com/r/vega113-robot/source/detail?r=a6d49df142 I also merged it with the latest changes
On Oct 30, 8:47 pm, Lennard de Rijk <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Vega <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yay! I made some changes to Robot class in order to filter non human > > originating events - and I could make a working Echoey robot! Thanks > > for the robot APIs patch! > > I guess my change to Robot code looks ugly, but if you want to look at > > it I can send a patch. > > Always happy to take a look, the operations code that would make echoey work > should hopefully be done next week :). > > Greetings, > Lennard > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 30, 11:27 am, Vega <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Would be interesting though, to make the robot decide on which events > > > it wants to act. If robot could specify it capabilities.xml that it > > > wants to receive events from robots x,y,z ... Could be a great > > > improvement over Google Wave implementation. > > > > On Oct 30, 12:39 am, Lennard de Rijk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Vega <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I tried to make an admin "robot" that would allow to reset passwords. > > > > > After applying [0] I could make some code that can react on > > > > > OnDocumentChange event and modify the document back, however the > > > > > message send by robot kept bouncing back and forth replicating > > itself, > > > > > probably RobotConnector should check who sent the message before > > > > > forwarding it to robot (probably should not react on events generated > > > > > by non-humans) > > > > > That's what the TODO in RobotsGateway is for :). > > > > > Greetings, > > > > Lennard > > > > > > [0]http://codereview.waveprotocol.org/221001/diff/1/4 > > > > > > On Oct 29, 11:57 am, Vega <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Ohh. I intended to use Echoey code as example off course and extend > > > > > > AbstractAgent. Is there an example of working robot? > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 9:20 am, Alex North <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Depending what you mean by "agent-based", please avoid using the > > code > > > > > in > > > > > > > box.server.agents. That code is earmarked for deletion; it was a > > rush > > > > > job > > > > > > > and does things in an ugly way. Its presence significantly > > hampers > > > > > other > > > > > > > development. We're only leaving it around to support the "echoey" > > agent > > > > > > > which is the only way to tell you've successfully federated with > > > > > acmewave. > > > > > > > As soon as we've ported echoey to a robot we intend to delete the > > code. > > > > > > > > You could build new code talking to the c/s protocol - with code > > review > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > optimistic we can do it right this time. > > > > > > > > A. > > > > > > > > On 29 October 2010 17:58, Vega <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that agent based password reset mechanism is > > pretty > > > > > > > > simple. I ll try to implement it and see if it gets more > > complex that > > > > > > > > I thought. > > > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2:04 am, Alex North <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 29 October 2010 10:44, Vega <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, I don't see a way how "password reset mechanism" can > > be > > > > > outside > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > authenticated world. Admin should be authenticated into > > something > > > > > (DB > > > > > > > > > > at least). > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I wasn't very clear. Yes, admins should be > > authenticated > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > administering the user database. > > > > > > > > > > Any self-password-reset mechanism would need to be > > unauthenticated > > > > > (but > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > rely on some other verification system, like sending an email > > to a > > > > > known > > > > > > > > > address). > > > > > > > > > > > If you want the most simple wavy password reset mechanism - > > do it > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > agent. > > > > > > > > > > -Invite agent into wave. > > > > > > > > > > -Issue password reset command > > > > > > > > > > -Agent has the access to users accounts, so it can check if > > the > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > > is authorized for such action, if so - it resets the > > password. > > > > > Cannot > > > > > > > > > > be simpler than that and easy to implement - and still > > wavy. > > > > > > > > > > I love your passion for implementing things the wavy way! > > > > > Experience has > > > > > > > > > taught me that it's more complex than you make it out, > > though. > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 1:26 am, Alex North <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I happen to agree with Vega that hosting profile > > information in > > > > > Wave > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > many advantages. However I disagree just on one piece: > > the > > > > > login > > > > > > > > > > > information. I do think the username and password need to > > > > > > > > > > > be manageable outside of Wave itself. They provide kind > > of a > > > > > minimal > > > > > > > > > > > bootstrapping environment you need. First you get a > > username > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > password, > > > > > > > > > > > then you can log into Wave. > > > > > > > > > > > > Clearly the password reset mechanism needs to be outside > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > authenticated world. I think it's simplest to put basic > > > > > password > > > > > > > > > > management > > > > > > > > > > > (changing your password when you already know it) outside > > of > > > > > waves > > > > > > > > too. > > > > > > > > > > > Building data models in Wave is nice and flexible, but > > it's a > > > > > lot of > > > > > > > > > > > overhead for something as basic as login credentials. > > > > > > > > > > > > In many cases, authentication will be delegated to some > > other > > > > > system, > > > > > > > > > > LDAP > > > > > > > > > > > for example. We're just trying to implement something > > basic for > > > > > > > > groups > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > don't have such a system. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 29 October 2010 05:03, Vega <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The advantage is obvious - you have everything in one > > place. > > > > > > > > Another > > > > > > > > > > > > advantage - the Wave environment - it means an option > > for > > > > > > > > extension. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example you can create a simple profile wave. Then > > you > > > > > (or some > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd party) can add extension that would import user > > info from > > > > > > > > facebook > > > > > > > > > > > > etc... > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 1:03 pm, x00 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if you have a gadget, you still need an > > interface to > > > > > do the > > > > > > > > > > > > > management. I don't see much advantage of embedding > > this > > > > > within a > > > > > > > > > > > > > wavelet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to > > the > > > > > Google > > > > > > > > > > Groups > > > > > > > > > > > > "Wave Protocol" group. > > > > > > > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]<wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog > > > > > > > > > > > > legroups.com> > > <wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog legroups.com> > > > > > <wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog legroups.com> > > > > > > > > <wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog legroups.com> > > > > > > > > > > <wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog legroups.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > > > > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > > > > Google > > > > > > > > Groups > > > > > > > > > > "Wave Protocol" group. > > > > > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]<wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog > > > > > > > > > > legroups.com> > > <wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog legroups.com> > > > > > <wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog legroups.com> > > > > > > > > <wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog legroups.com> > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > Google > > > > > Groups > > > > > > > > "Wave Protocol" group. > > > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > > > [email protected]<wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog > > > > > > > > legroups.com> > > <wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog legroups.com> > > > > > <wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog legroups.com> > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups > > > > > "Wave Protocol" group. > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > [email protected]<wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog > > > > > legroups.com> > > <wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog legroups.com> > > > > > . > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Wave Protocol" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog > > legroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
