Community
Participate
Working Groups
A sametime provider would be great. I'm investigating looking at the new ST 7.5 toolkit for usage.
Any comments on using ST 7.5 toolkit to create sametime provider?
yes it's possible, but time is preventing me from further investigating this. I say it would be a great SoC project :) It's not particularly challenging to do the basic messaging support for ST
(In reply to comment #2) > yes it's possible, but time is preventing me from further investigating this. I > say it would be a great SoC project :) It's not particularly challenging to do > the basic messaging support for ST Chris, what about the token issue we discussed briefly back around December? Have you found a "public server" that people can connect to?
For now no, it can be tested internally and whoever else has access to a sametime server. I think the key is just to get something basic working. I'll look into getting a server possibly.
Since I'm on board now for a bit, I can certainly help with this effort, Chris. How do you want to proceed?
Excellent, lets talk about this later this week. I'm interested to see how the sametime API evolved in 7.5.1, maybe we don't even need to bundlize the ST API anymore.
Sorry about yesterday, Chris, things are getting pretty busy for me and all that. What was it that you wanted to discuss about now?
Changing target milestone to 1.1.0
Any info on this contribution?
Setting target milestone to 2.0.0M4.
FWIW, I received requests for this f2f at Eclipsecon.
The bugzilla's "voting" feature seems disabled for this product, so I'll just vote for it in the comments. I'd also like to see a provider for ST 7.5.
here here! another vote for a sametime provider.
If one were so inclined, where would one look to investigate coding the sametime support? is there documentation for how to implement custom providers, etc? I'm asking as someone who knows eclipse halfway decent, java fairly well, but who doesn't know anything about the guts of sametime (not that that probably matters), though I do have a sametime server internally to test against. Just asking.... thanks.
(In reply to comment #14) > If one were so inclined, where would one look to investigate coding the > sametime support? is there documentation for how to implement custom providers, > etc? This document may be outdated in some regards but the concepts should still apply. http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-ecl-commfwk/ > I'm asking as someone who knows eclipse halfway decent, java fairly well, > but who doesn't know anything about the guts of sametime (not that that > probably matters), though I do have a sametime server internally to test > against. Well, I think you should probably worry about finding an open source Java library that implements the Sametime protocol before you start worrying about implementing ECF's APIs if you're not going to implement it by hand. I had problems finding one in the past but maybe I was just barking up the wrong trees.
thanks for the reply Remy. I understand, based on this document (http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wikis/display/sametime/Installing+SIP+and+XMPP+proxy+servers) that sametime supports xmpp. Does that change the game at all? What I mean is, does that create the opportunity to not need to communicate via the sametime protocol but rather using the existing xmpp communication code in ecf?
That link implies that the onus is on the server administrator. There exists a sametime client library we could develop against in ecf. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/lotus/downloads/toolkits.html#sametime
I'm interested in getting a SameTime provider, and have got access to a server. Has anyone else started work on this yet?
I haven't looked at this in awhile, but it wouldn't be too hard to write one. I'd be willing to help you out James as at one point, I actually had this working a couple years ago.
Hey Guys, I'm wondering if you've looked into or thought about this anymore. Mainly, the reason I'm asking is that I may have some opportunity where I work right now to make headway on getting us using ECF Shared Editing, but it is unlikely that they'll open up the gtalk ports. Since we do have Sametime8, that looks like the way to go for us. I'm just a coder... I don't know thing 1 about sametime, xmpp, etc. I can go to them with the Sametime/XMPP stuff and pray they know what it all means, then pray they'll open up the ports/etc to get it working. I was going to look at writing a sametime provider, but we just got swamped at work so there's no way they'll support the time it'd take me to do it, unfortunately. Just asking! thanks. Marc
(In reply to comment #20) > Hey Guys, > I'm wondering if you've looked into or thought about this anymore. Mainly, the > reason I'm asking is that I may have some opportunity where I work right now to > make headway on getting us using ECF Shared Editing, but it is unlikely that > they'll open up the gtalk ports. Since we do have Sametime8, that looks like > the way to go for us. I'm just a coder... I don't know thing 1 about sametime, > xmpp, etc. I can go to them with the Sametime/XMPP stuff and pray they know > what it all means, then pray they'll open up the ports/etc to get it working. I > was going to look at writing a sametime provider, but we just got swamped at > work so there's no way they'll support the time it'd take me to do it, > unfortunately. > > Just asking! > > thanks. > > Marc > Hi Marc, Thanks for asking. There are two things holding us back from implementing a Sametime provider: 1) Time (i.e. each of the ECF committers has lots of things on our respective plates to complete before Galileo) 2) Access to a Sametime server (i.e. for testing of a client provider implementation). WRT #1, I (Scott) would be happy to support implementing such a provider, but I can't currently commit to doing it myself over the next 3 months, as there are a number of project-level things that I must do over the time prior to Galileo release in late June 2009 (e.g. distributed OSGi...bug #249240). WRT #2, since we are not able to purchase a server license, and AFAIK the Sametime server is not made available for free access, this makes it hard to develop and test a provider. If I am incorrect about the ability for us to get a server license please let me know (...perhaps the terms of a Sametime server license have changed for open source/non-commercial projects and I'm not aware of it). So if we can jointly find some development expertise to work with me/us to address #1, and there is a way that anyone is aware of to deal with #2, I would very much like to address this enhancement.
The license for the Java SDK for Sametime doesn't seem very clear to me. I know I had to log in to My IBM to download it, and the license isn't clearly listed as EPL or anything. Does anyone know, if a community member were to contribute a Sametime provider, would the code be able to be hosted at Eclipse.org (in the ECF repo) with the required bits from the Sametime Java SDK?
(In reply to comment #22) > The license for the Java SDK for Sametime doesn't seem very clear to me. I > know I had to log in to My IBM to download it, and the license isn't clearly > listed as EPL or anything. Does anyone know, if a community member were to > contribute a Sametime provider, would the code be able to be hosted at > Eclipse.org (in the ECF repo) with the required bits from the Sametime Java > SDK? > Hi Anthony. So there's a distinction here between 1) the sametime libraries 2) the ECF sametime provider that uses these libraries I don't know the sametime license at all, but I expect that there's no way that these libraries can/could be hosted at eclipse.org, or even distributed as part of ECF. BUT, as long as whoever wrote 2 licensed that code under EPL, then 2 can/could be at least hosted at eclipse.org. Obviously it wouldn't make much sense to distribute it as part of a feature/release (since it wouldn't work without 1). But I believe that as long as that code itself was under EPL it can/could be hosted at eclipse.org. Another possibility, BTW, is that at least for development/testing, both 1 and 2 could be hosted not at dev.eclipse.org, but rather at ECF's CVS repo at the Oregon State University Open Source Lab http://ecf1.osuosl.org. We have some other codebases that are currently there (e.g. a JavaGroups provider, which is based upon www.javagroups.org...which is licensed under LGPL and so incompatible with EPL). But if you are considering working on/doing a Sametime provider please lets find a way to develop it, test it and make it available (under some license).
(In reply to comment #23) > (In reply to comment #22) > So there's a distinction here between > > 1) the sametime libraries > 2) the ECF sametime provider that uses these libraries > I understand this distinction, and my question was referring to the license for #1 only. Any work that I find time to do (which may be no time at all, unfortunately) on #2 I'd want EPL licensed and hosted at eclipse.org. But if it's possible to avoid the sorts of licensing issues that the Subversive/Subclipse plugins run into.
(In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #23) > > (In reply to comment #22) > > So there's a distinction here between > > > > 1) the sametime libraries > > 2) the ECF sametime provider that uses these libraries > > > > I understand this distinction, and my question was referring to the license for > #1 only. Any work that I find time to do (which may be no time at all, > unfortunately) on #2 I'd want EPL licensed and hosted at eclipse.org. But if > it's possible to avoid the sorts of licensing issues that the > Subversive/Subclipse plugins run into. > Honestly I haven't been privy to all of what's gone on there, but I know that what's resulted is not optimal for consumers, as I believe it requires people who wish to use Subversive (for example) to get supporting bundles under non-EPL license (i.e. 1) from somewhere other than the Eclipse Foundation *in addition* to getting them from the EF subversive project/Galileo. I think we would have to do a similar thing, unfortunately...otherwise I'm not sure how to make it easier for consumers without violating current EF IP policies.
I know this bug is a little old, but I'm also interested in this providre. BTW, has someone figured out how to use ECF with Sametime over XMPP, so the provider requested is useless? Thanks in advance.
(In reply to comment #26) > I know this bug is a little old, but I'm also interested in this providre. I would like to see this provider created and made available. For actual progress on this bug/provider, however, I think it's likely that someone with access to the Sametime SDK is going to have to commit to work on it. I would nominate Remy Suen and/or Chris Anisczyck...both ECF committers...to lead doing it...perhaps with coordinated contributions from the community (i.e. people cc'd on this bug and/or others). To get more interest/involvement and perhaps contributors, it might also be a good idea to send an email to ecf-dev at eclipse.org mailing list and/or the ECF newsgroup about desire to have a Sametime provider. > > BTW, has someone figured out how to use ECF with Sametime over XMPP, so the > provider requested is useless? Thanks in advance. I personally cannot try this, as I don't have access to Sametime-based servers.
Still be nice to have this, but I don't know how. Please reopen with interest and resources for moving forward.
