Re: [xwiki-users] [Investigation] User Statuses

On 11/24/2010 04:12 PM, Fabio Mancinelli wrote: Obvious, +1. You mean something like: BigBoss says: How do we get through the crisis? Jimmy says: @BigBoss reduce costs! Mike says: @BigBoss sell more! And: Jimmy says: @Timmy where can I get a W80 form? Timmy says: @Jimmy room 404 You mean link sharing? I'm not sure this is the best way to communicate. It might work if it behaves a bit like instant messaging, with updates being refreshed in real time. Also, for it to make sense as a discussion, it should be threaded. So this starts to look like Google Wave, which somehow failed. It might work in an intranet, but still it would diverge too much from a simple status update, and I'm not sure how it can be integrated nicely inside the current Activity UI (nor the implementation, but that's not critical). I'm not sure I get this. Isn't an *intra*net supposed to be internal, inaccessible to external parties? Do you mean closed group messages, visible only in a given space? This is getting too far from the initial ideas. It was supposed to be integrated in the recent activity, as little user messages mixed among wiki activity. Now it looks like the main goal is user communication, with wiki activity on the second place. Going the Chatter way would imply many changes in the ActivityStream implementation, the {{activity}} macro, and the Recent Activity UI. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to go there, I'm only asking if we want to do it as the "User Statuses" sub-feature inside the Activity feature. That's always the case. The full wiki syntax might be available, which includes links to documents/attachment. If we do that, then should the WYSIWYG be displayed as well? +1 for links to existing data only. We could provide a "notify this" checkbox in the edit/upload UI. We could have activities for a space, and activities for a group. This means that in the group UI we could integrate a "say something" widget. Another idea is a panel which allows you to specify where to post the update: global (default), current space, specific space (with suggest), group of users (with suggest), specific user (with suggest). My fear is that the UI will be too complex, which increases the likelihood of users abandoning their update. If something takes too much to accomplish, or there are too many knobs to tinker with, then people will avoid that. Is a simple "reply to this" enough? The current activity stream allows for 2000 characters (which usually is rounded to something more), so this should be OK. This can be done at the UI level, but it's going to be hard to protect it at the API level. We can do it if we change the activitystream plugin to expose more high level methods, like getEventsForCurrentSpace and getEventsForCurrentGroup, while keeping the generic methods protected (as they are now). I don't like this, since it introduces details about the high-level application inside the low-level platform. So, my two main questions: 1. Do we want to make the "User Statuses" this complex? Or do we separate into a simple "User Statuses" and a complex facebook/chatter/wave like application? 2. What are the possible targets of a message? 2.1 Only neighborhoods == XWiki Groups and users - group:XWiki.XWikiAllGroup - group:XWiki.R&DGroup - user:XWiki.johndoe 2.2 Only Wiki, space or page 2.3 Entity references which can target different things, like: - somewiki - somewiki:somespace - somewiki:somespace.somepage - somewiki:XWiki.somegroup#XWiki.XWikiGroup - somewiki:XWiki.someuser#XWiki.XWikiUsers -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/