On Nov 2, 4:50 am, Wim <[email protected]> wrote: > Why not? If the robots aim is best served by responding to all > messages then why shouldn't it respond to all messages? Imagine a > translation bot that embeds replies in a blip translating that blip > into selected languages, why should other robots blips be ignored by > this bot?
There is nothing wrong with your idea other than the fact that robots are inherently slow, especially for examples like this. That is why I don't think robots are the be and end all. A distributed agent system would best serve this sort of situation IMO. Just like browser use distributed code in a sandboxed environment, and this has undoubtedly an invaluable motor to the web. There is no reason why agent code can't be distributed to wave servers, and by proxy also to wave client servers is a similar way other than wanting to be idealistic fr the sake of being idealistic. @Alex about trust. You will have to trust wave servers anyway. I agree with you that there is no point in requiring a robot to identify itself. But your point about spam is moot. If a service is misbehaving it may cause some disruption, then retroactively you can decide not to have anything to do with them. -- 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.
