Hi, (sorry for not reading the discussions above, I hope to get to read them at some point)
I just wanted to remind you that: 1. We (at least I did) have previously concluded that it was a *mistake* to mix notifications with messages. 1.1 Notifications have transient lifecycle and can be easily discarded. The previous ActivityStream implementation actually had a periodic notifications/events cleaner that would automatically delete events older than (e.g.) 30 days, for both storage and performance reasons. 1.2 Messages have a much longer lifecycle, some users choosing to never delete them and keep record of all conversations they ever had with someone. 1.3 Mixing storage for the 2 is a recipe for disaster, IMO, and, if/when we plan to handle it seriously, we should either implement or integrate a separate solution for messaging, both on the storage and the UI level. IMO, the biggest intersection between Notifications and Messaging is the ability to receive a notification about the fact that you have received a message from X. Reading the message and acting upon it (i.e. replying, etc.) should be done in the dedicated UI of the Messaging Application (i.e. inbox/etc.). 2. We *don't have to* and *shouldn't* keep all the features of the previous system. Instead, this was supposed to be a good opportunity to improve on our previous mistakes, not repeat them, in a new and improved system. 3. The Network/Follow feature is still a nice feature to stay up to date with the activity of some users of interest. The "Send message to followers", however, is, IMO, outside the scope of Notifications. 4. When talking about Messaging, we can also distinguish 2 types of messages: public and private. 4.1 Private messages should, IMO, necessarily be addressed with the Messaging application detailed at 1. Also, private messages need to be trustworthy, as they can/do usually contain sensitive information. The data should not be deleted and it should be properly protected. 4.2 Public messages, that have a more transient nature, could be the scope of some "Announcements" application, that could behave as Notifications. Couple that with the ability to interact with events (i.e. reactions or comments on the page displayed under the event) and you get a very live and social environment. Thanks, Eduard On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: > > > > On 31 May 2018, at 18:07, Clément Aubin <aubincl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 05/31/2018 05:44 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On 31 May 2018, at 17:28, Clément Aubin <aubincl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 05/31/2018 04:42 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: > >>> > >>> […] > >>> > >>>>> I'm here describing my own usage of collaborative platforms or social > >>>>> networks. If it wasn't supported before today, maybe we should think > >>>>> about it, because usually, people with only one friend to talk to are > >>>>> rare. Having multiple conversation is something that we should at > least > >>>>> think about. > >>>> > >>>> Did I say we should not think about it? > >>> > >>> Oh I'm sure that you didn't said that, but this would need a more > >>> in-depth investigation, and not just 2 days of implementation. > >> > >> No no this is out of scope for now. > >> > >>> > >>>> Also as I wrote you can send to a group and to everyone too so yes > you can send to multiple people. > >>> > >>> I'm not talking about sending a message to groups, but to multiple > >>> individuals. > >> > >> I know and out of scope for now. > >> > >>> > >>>>> Also, as you mentioned it in the end of your previous mail, "if we do > >>>>> nothing now, nothing will happen for at least 1 year", what makes you > >>>>> think that we'll have the time to improve the feature later on, even > if > >>>>> we do need it ? > >>>> > >>>> Ok so we have a big disagreement: > >>>> * You say “displaying notifications in the proposed way is bad thing > and there’s no use case for it” > >>> > >>> Please don't rephrase me like that :) . The current notifications are, > >>> IMO correctly displayed (and we're not debating about how to display > >>> notifications AFAIK). > >> > >> Sorry I meant ‘displaying messages in the notifications UI in the > proposed way is a bad thing and there’s no use case for it” > >> > >>> However, I don't think that the notification > >>> center has been crafted to correctly display user messages. Merging > >>> events coming from the wiki and messages coming from the message stream > >>> is tricky. > >> > >> Why? They’re both coming from the same location, i.e. event table… > > > > Mostly because user messages (as in private, user to user messages) can > > be related from one to another (ie : the message B that you just sent me > > is a response from the message A that I sent you). You will then need > > some context to display the response from someone in your notification > > center. I don't think that we have an easy way to do that now. > > We could actually (since the event stream allows for 4-5 custom params). > > However, I wouldn’t do answers FTM (I don’t think we had this before > either). Just ability to send messages. > > > > >>> > >>>> * I say “‘displaying notifications for those who want to send > messages to a single person, to a group or to everyone is better than not > being able to do it”. > >>>> > >>>> Also note that it’s disabled by default ATM so by default you get > what you want, i.e. nothing! > >>> > >>> It's disabled by default for now, but it's actually proposed to enable > >>> it, else the proposal (2) would not make any sense. > >> > >> It’s not proposed FTM. Maybe you’re mixing the display of messages when > there are some with the messageSender macro usage on the dashboard? > > > > I'm talking about user messages as in [1] ; so private, user to user > > messages. > > > >>> That also raises a problem : how can I be sure that you will be able to > >>> receive my message if I don't know in advance if you have enable or > >>> disabled your ability to receive messages in your notification > preferences ? > >> > >> The proposal Guillaume is implementing is to have them enabled by > default. > >> > >> But indeed that could be refinement in the future that you can’t send > messages to someone if they have disabled the reception. It’s out of scope > though. > >> > >>> > >>> […] > >>> > >>>>> Yes, this is a feature that is also nice to have for all kind of > >>>>> notification, however, this is what I mean by "shipping a half > finished > >>>>> feature" : messaging is something done in real time. > >>>> > >>>> Again we don’t agree about this. We’re not implementing a chat. We’re > implementing message sending as in email sending. Live message sending is > another feature. > >>>> > >>>>> If you forget to > >>>>> refresh your page, you forget to get new messages. Imagine if you > had to > >>>>> refresh a page every time you wanted to see a new message on IRC. > >>>> > >>>> This is exactly what you do with your email and I don’t think you can > say that email is useless… > >>> > >>> Ha ok, indeed, I didn't though about a non-live implementation of a > >>> messaging system. IMO that's still something old (as nowadays, almost > >>> every messaging system are live, even on forums and boards, that used > to > >>> propose this idea of personal messages a lot). > >> > >> email is old but the most used system :) So old doesn’t mean useful! > >> > >>> This could be an improvement idea if and only if we have an "inbox" or > >>> something in which we can put the messages that a user received in > order > >>> for him to check on them later. > >> > >> Yes notifications is an inbox for notifications. We have that already. > you can even ack them. > >> > >>> > >>> […] > >>> > >>>>> So we're putting back something that has been disabled by default > since > >>>>> more than one year without giving it enough features to be usable > for a > >>>>> standard user (things like being able to get messages in real time, > for > >>>>> example). For me, it's both a waste of time, and this might even > degrade > >>>>> the image of XWiki as it (IMO) won't be a very useful feature. > >>>> > >>>> I disagree with you and I’ve already explained in details the reasons > in a bullet point list. > >>>> > >>>>> I think that sending messages into the event stream was kind of a bad > >>>>> idea from the beginning as messages don't have the same "weight" as > >>>>> other wiki events. > >>>> > >>>> The event stream has nothing to do with weight. It’s a timeline > thing. It’s like saying: “having emails displayed in the order they are > sent is a bad idea”. > >>> > >>> Using your example, you're not just displaying emails, you're also > >>> displaying a ton of notifications about the documents that have been > >>> updated in your wiki. > >> > >> We’re displaying notifications. > >> > >>> > >>>> The way even stream events are displayed is an implementation detail. > They can be filtered, grouped, etc. > >>> > >>> I don't think that you should require a user to tune his notification > >>> preferences in order not to be flooded by notifications. Having > messages > >>> is kind of a risk here because this implementation detail does not > >>> protect the user enough from the messages hiding other important > events. > >> > >> I don’t understand your point. Why would a user tune anything? A user > simply says what notifications they’re interested in seeing. > >> > >> If they select too many then they’ll have the same issue you have with > email :) > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> I do understand that you don't like loosing features, > >>>>> but since I've known XWiki, I've never heared of the Message Stream > in a > >>>>> good, useful and productive way. > >>>> > >>>> Then you shouldn’t care at all since it’s not going to be used and > you’re not the one implementing it. It’s also off by default. > >>> > >>> See the beginning of my response. > >>> > >>>> So reading between the line, in the end you’re saying: > >>>> * We shouldn’t have a messaging feature because what we need is a > chat feature > >>> > >>> Actually, I don't think that a chat feature would be mandatory, but I > do > >>> think that it would be more attracting to people. > >>> > >>>> * There’s no way that people could use messages, it’s not useful > >>> > >>> I see some use cases for live messages, but I'm indeed having a hard > >>> time seeing use cases for non-live messages as people can use another > >>> chat tool aside from their wiki if we don't propose an "inbox" > solution. > >>> > >>> It won't be reliable to send a message as : > >>> * It can be filtered out by the recipient notification preferences > >>> * It can be ditched in the bottom of the notifications of a user if he > / > >>> she does not clean his / her notifications quickly enough > >>> * There's no way to access this message once the notification center > has > >>> been cleared > >>> > >>>> What I’m saying: > >>>> * We don't have chat feature and that’s a very large feature to > develop with a completely different architecture. > >>> > >>> At least we agree on that :) > >>> > >>>> * A messaging feature is still interesting even if we have a chat > feature one day. Example use case: "send a message to everyone that the > xwiki will be be upgraded tomorrow”, “ notify a group of person to review a > document”, etc. > >>> > >>> Note that what you described are events and can actually be implemented > >>> using the event stream, so I'm not sure that those are correct > examples. > >> > >> A message is an event for which the content is defined by the user. Not > sure what you mean. > > > > Not sure about what you mean too then … following your definition, [1] > > is then a user message and [2] and [3] are not. At least, that's what I > > understand as "user messages”. > > I was trying to understand what you meant by “Note that what you described > are events and can actually be implemented > using the event stream, so I'm not sure that those are correct examples.”. > > Messages *ARE* implemented using the event stream :) > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > >>> > >>>> * It costs little to be back to iso feature (1-2 days) and it’s > taking almost the same amount of time just to discuss not doing it in this > thread ;) > >>> > >>> I don't like this idea as this is kind of discouraging the discussion > on > >>> features that we have to put in the platform ([1], especially "Ensure > >>> agreement on the work being done (it's too stupid to do a lot of work > >>> and only find when it's finished that it wasn't the right way to do it > >>> and it has to be all redone again)") ;) > >> > >> What? You lost me completely here. > >> > >> Why does it discourage discussions to implement something? > >> > >> If you’re interested in working on a chat system in xwiki, please knock > yourself up and start a proposal/discussion. Nobody is preventing you from > doing that. > >> > >> Thanks > >> -Vincent > >> > >>> > >>>> * I don’t see why messaging would be bad and affect the XWiki usage > >>> negatively. Especially since message stream is off by default. > >>> > >>> See the beginning of my response. > >>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> -Vincent > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Clément > > > > [1] > > http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/ > UserMessageNotifications#HUserMessages > > [2] > > http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/ > UserMessageNotifications#HUserMentions > > [3] > > http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/ > UserMessageNotifications#HAppNotifications > >
