Re: [9fans] Collaborative Sam?

[Jorden Mauro <jrm8005@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:34 AM, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know enough about sam's innards to be able to say whether or not
> this could work, but I do like the idea.

I think it's doable because of the way sam's remote mode works -- it
appears to just use pipes.

Therefore, I thought that maybe a multiplexer could sit between a
single sam and several samterms, organizing the protocol messages from
all the different samterms and presenting something sane to the single
sam -R instance. It would have to be convincing to that individual
sam, appearing to be a single `normal' samterm. I think the fact that
sam uses a database-like protocol would make that possible; all the
results of the multiplexer's merging and so forth would be presented
to the sam -R instance as if they were coming in as protocol messages
from a single samterm.

>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Jorden Mauro <jrm8005@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How hard would it be to stick a program between a single sam -R and
>> several samterms? I imagine such a program would have to interpret the
>> sam protocol and handle merges and simultaneous updates, but since sam
>> essentially treats files operations as database transactions, it seems
>> like sam's protocol could be very helpful. The possibilities for what
>> such an intermediary program could do are probably limitless, but I
>> was thinking it could make collaborative editing via sam a
>> possibility.
>>
>> I don't know enough about sam's protocol to know if such an idea would
>> work.
>>
>
>