From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3aaafc131003150814k983f8d8k99e90abb16c73f32@mail.gmail.com> References: <3aaafc131003150705t5832e72fv6b17c1bf6da000ef@mail.gmail.com> <3e1162e61003150734y7c7482fbsfcdca20069cc4ac2@mail.gmail.com> <3aaafc131003150814k983f8d8k99e90abb16c73f32@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:30:24 -0700 Message-ID: <3e1162e61003150830r6ceff701h1abbc7fcf8ea47fa@mail.gmail.com> From: David Leimbach To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd1145c511ed30481d88f57 Subject: Re: [9fans] Collaborative Sam? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e888f420-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --000e0cd1145c511ed30481d88f57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Jorden Mauro wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:34 AM, David Leimbach > 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. > > Well I think there'd have to be a concept of a session in there somewhere, so that edits by one person could be differentiated from edits by another. Also how atomic are the messages in the protocol and can they be "committed" transactionally to the buffer? If so I think there might be something doable here. It'd be cool to use with Inferno for example, where you can run editing sessions from anyone's PC in a company setting. Isn't that what the collaborative whiteboard app in Inferno is/was for? I've never tried running it. Dave > > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Jorden Mauro 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. > >> > > > > > > --000e0cd1145c511ed30481d88f57 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Jorden = Mauro <jrm8005@gm= ail.com> wrote:
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 whet= her or not
> this could work, but I do like the idea.

I think it's doable because of the way sam's remote mode work= s -- 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.


Well I think there'd have to be a concept of a session in there= somewhere, so that edits by one person could be differentiated from edits = by another. =A0Also how atomic are the messages in the protocol and can the= y be "committed" transactionally =A0to the buffer? =A0If so I thi= nk there might be something doable here. =A0

It'd be cool to use with Inferno for example, where= you can run editing sessions from anyone's PC in a company setting. = =A0

Isn't that what the collaborative whiteboa= rd app in Inferno is/was for? =A0I've never tried running it.

Dave
=A0
>
> 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 an= d
>> 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 s= eems
>> like sam's protocol could be very helpful. The possibilities f= or 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 a= n idea would
>> work.
>>
>
>


--000e0cd1145c511ed30481d88f57--