Still, no worries, text is notorious for getting taken out of
context. More emoticons, I say. :)
On Nov 21, 4:00 am, cmdskp <comdudes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> They did design it that way - but it doesn't mean they designed it to
> not allow it - you're inferring too much from two words.
>
> If something doesn't offer an option, it doesn't mean they
> purposefully decided against that option - omitting something doesn't
> mean it was deliberate.
>
> It's a statement to explain it's about the design - not flippancy.
> After all, the sentence continues to explain the design with respect
> to 'context' which provided you with your answer as to what was
> possible and how it worked to the best of my knowledge.
>
> If I had not actually helped by answering your question with
> information in the same sentence then I would agree it would be
> flippant. As it is, I think you misread my intentions badly.
>
> On Nov 20, 12:26 pm, Olreich <olre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I must apologize then. "By design" implies that they designed it to
> > not allow for it. And thus, the question of it's purpose is natural.
> > "By design" is deliberate, thought out. It's also flippant and means
> > nothing, and I was grasping for answers, so I took the most meaningful
> > route. It happens I suppose, though I am sorry to mis-quote you.
>
> > On Nov 20, 12:30 am, cmdskp <comdudes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I didn't say anything like you thought I did above on the Issue
> > > Tracker. I even provided you with the answer about the new robot API
> > > allowing access to other blips in the future in my first reply -
> > > nothing about purpose or that you're not supposed to, etc.
>
> > > On Nov 20, 4:10 am, cmdskp <comdudes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I really should read the rest of a thread before jumping to reply to
> > > > someone asking for an answer in a link above...
>
> > > > Anyway, qMax gave the same answer I just did on your issue Olreich. I
> > > > didn't star the issue, so didn't get any notification.
>
> > > > As you can imagine, this has been a feature lots of people have asked
> > > > about and the answer appears dotted around in various places I've come
> > > > across over the last month or so.
>
> > > > When I said: 'This is by design.' it meant that the design is that way
> > > > currently - purpose can't be inferred without more info than the
> > > > exposed design offers.
>
> > > > But you can see logic in it, from a number of perspectives:
>
> > > > - Bandwidth
> > > > - Speed of processing requests
> > > > - Scaleability
> > > > - Overloading wave servers
>
> > > > etc.
>
> > > > I look forward to the new design of the robot API so that my robot can
> > > > perform across the whole wave as I hoped and others expect.
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 5:46 pm, Olreich <olre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Sweet, thanks for that information.
>
> > > > > On Nov 19, 9:46 am, qMax <qwigly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > qmax:
> > > > > > in wave-api group it was asked, but asker seems missing here.
> > > > > > will robots be able to access blips/wavelets out of scope of current
> > > > > > event?
>
> > > > > > austin:
> > > > > > robot has access to the context of the triggering blip, its
> > > > > > immediate
> > > > > > parent and child context. Anything other than it has no access to.
>
> > > > > > qmax:
> > > > > > what if i build an operation manually, using waveid/waveletid/blipid
> > > > > > out of context?
>
> > > > > > austin:
> > > > > > you can perform action to that blip such as appending, etc. But you
> > > > > > still have no context to its actual content, like if you want to
> > > > > > parse
> > > > > > out any FormElement within the blip. A new mechanism we are working
> > > > > > is the active gateway API which will allow a robot to make active
> > > > > > request to wave to retrieve full context of any blip.
>
> > > > > > On 17 ноя, 11:41, Olreich <olre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The Java API has the Blip.getParent() function. When this is
> > > > > > > called,
> > > > > > > the returned blip does not have the ability to "getParent()"
> > > > > > > again it
> > > > > > > seems. or, at the least, one cannot continue walking without
> > > > > > > hitting
> > > > > > > null on the second trial. The same rings true when using
> > > > > > > "isParentAvailable()" to check for parents.
>
> > > > > > > Here is an excerpt of the code for walking up the blip chain.
>
> > > > > > > Blip currentBlip = bottomBlip;
> > > > > > > Blip lastBlip = null;
> > > > > > > while ((currentBlip = currentBlip.getParent()) != null) {
> > > > > > > lastBlip = currentBlip;
>
> > > > > > > }
>
> > > > > > > This stops with currentBlip being exactly 1 parent above
> > > > > > > bottomBlip.
> > > > > > > Every time.
>
> > > > > > > Sample Blip chain information:
>
> > > > > > > 12:21
> > > > > > > Blip Id: b+2ew83hhsK
> > > > > > > Parent Blip Id:b+9k9iVrZkEzM
> > > > > > > Parent Available: true
>
> > > > > > > 12:21 am
> > > > > > > Blip Id: b+2ew83hhsM
> > > > > > > Parent Blip Id:b+2ew83hhsL
> > > > > > > Parent Available: true
>
> > > > > > > 12:22 am
> > > > > > > Blip Id: b+2ew83hhsN
> > > > > > > Parent Blip Id:b+2ew83hhsM
> > > > > > > Parent Available: true
>
> > > > > > > 12:22 am
> > > > > > > Blip Id: b+9k9iVrZkE0z
> > > > > > > Parent Blip Id:b+2ew83hhsN
> > > > > > > Parent Available: true
>
> > > > > > > 12:22am
> > > > > > > Blip Id: b+2ew83hhsO
> > > > > > > Parent Blip Id:b+9k9iVrZkE0z
> > > > > > > Parent Available: true
>
> > > > > > > Using a bundle.getBlip(waveId, waveletId, parentBlipId) command to
> > > > > > > travel also does not work, as it stops once more at the blip just
> > > > > > > above.
>
> > > > > > > What appears to be happening is that each blip, upon a
> > > > > > > BLIP_SUBMITTED
> > > > > > > event, has the ability to see it's parents and such, but when a
> > > > > > > blip
> > > > > > > is found via any of the methods of "get" there is no parent
> > > > > > > information on them. It would be most useful to have this worked
> > > > > > > out,
> > > > > > > as then it would give us at least 1 way to reliably count blips,
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > batch operations to blips, and a couple other fun things.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google Wave API" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-wave-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-wave-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-wave-api?hl=.
