AutoWikiBrowser is open source but Windows-only, being written to the .NET 2 framework. Mono isn't up to .NET 2, and .NET 2 doesn't install under Wine on Linux. But I've opened a Wine bug for it:
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8499
Others are invited to give their stacktraces, relay traces, etc. Be sure to be using the current Wine, the .NET issue is being actively worked on and two weeks can make a difference.
(Darn, a reason to keep Winders around. AWB is just unbelievably cool, and is a much nicer browser to *edit* Wikipedia in. See [[WP:AWB]].)
The related .NET 2 on Wine bug is http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3972 .
If you have other useful .NET programs you would like to run under Wine, give them a try on the current version and let wine-users know and possibly file a bug.
- d.
On 5/27/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
AutoWikiBrowser is open source but Windows-only, be [AWB] is a much nicer browser to *edit* Wikipedia in. See [[WP:AWB]].)
Please explain.
Steve
On 27/05/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/27/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
AutoWikiBrowser is open source but Windows-only, be [AWB] is a much nicer browser to *edit* Wikipedia in. See [[WP:AWB]].)
Please explain.
Excellent for doing work on a predetermined list of articles. A lot less fiddly than using an ordinary web browser if you already know the articles you'll be working on.
- d.
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent for doing work on a predetermined list of articles. A lot less fiddly than using an ordinary web browser if you already know the articles you'll be working on.
Interesting idea. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a real MediaWiki client though. Magnus hacked together something surprisingly useful in a coffeebreak, and AWB is handy for some things, but how about a *real* editor?
Steve
On 27/05/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent for doing work on a predetermined list of articles. A lot less fiddly than using an ordinary web browser if you already know the articles you'll be working on.
Interesting idea. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a real MediaWiki client though. Magnus hacked together something surprisingly useful in a coffeebreak, and AWB is handy for some things, but how about a *real* editor?
All the pieces are readily available. There's any number of classes and Perl modules and stuff and nonsense, wikipediafs is just waiting for people to do something useful with it, pywikipedia is robust, api.php exists now.
Someone just has to write it ;-)
- d.
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
All the pieces are readily available. There's any number of classes and Perl modules and stuff and nonsense, wikipediafs is just waiting for people to do something useful with it, pywikipedia is robust, api.php exists now.
Someone just has to write it ;-)
I'm talking about a local client for communicating with a remote mediawiki install. Are you?
Steve
On 27/05/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
All the pieces are readily available. There's any number of classes and Perl modules and stuff and nonsense, wikipediafs is just waiting for people to do something useful with it, pywikipedia is robust, api.php exists now. Someone just has to write it ;-)
I'm talking about a local client for communicating with a remote mediawiki install. Are you?
Yep!
api.php should get programmers thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
api.php should get programmers thinking:
At first glance, that is cooler than liquid nitrogen. Not everything I'd want, but an excellent start, with a lot of thought behind it. Thanks for mentioning this.
William
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
All the pieces are readily available. There's any number of classes and Perl modules and stuff and nonsense, wikipediafs is just waiting for people to do something useful with it, pywikipedia is robust, api.php exists now.
Someone just has to write it ;-)
I'm talking about a local client for communicating with a remote mediawiki install. Are you?
I like the solution of just offloading the "communicating" part to a generic filesystem layer, and then using any local client to edit the pages that I wish, instead of a custom "Wikipedia editing" client. I use WikipediaFS http://wikipediafs.sourceforge.net/ to mount Wikipedia as a local filesystem, and vim to edit.
-Mark
On 5/27/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
All the pieces are readily available. There's any number of classes and Perl modules and stuff and nonsense, wikipediafs is just waiting for people to do something useful with it, pywikipedia is robust, api.php exists now.
Someone just has to write it ;-)
I'm talking about a local client for communicating with a remote mediawiki install. Are you?
Exactly what kind of functionality did you have in mind?
I recently began work on a client app in Java that works something like a pseudo-ssh shell, allowing you to use vim or whatever editor to edit MediaWiki pages, along with providing a fairly extensive Java framework that has (or will have ...) all the functionality of pywiki and a command-line interface to go with each application. This is my ideal way of doing just about everything, but I'm not sure if there is any demand for a client like this; as such, I'd planned on just keeping it to myself and working in silence. Would this kind of a client be one that you would find helpful?
On 02/06/07, Daniel Cannon cannon.danielc@gmail.com wrote:
I recently began work on a client app in Java that works something like a pseudo-ssh shell, allowing you to use vim or whatever editor to edit MediaWiki pages, along with providing a fairly extensive Java framework that has (or will have ...) all the functionality of pywiki and a command-line interface to go with each application. This is my ideal way of doing just about everything, but I'm not sure if there is any demand for a client like this; as such, I'd planned on just keeping it to myself and working in silence. Would this kind of a client be one that you would find helpful?
I dunno if anyone will offer ideas or code, but if you put it up you just *know* someone will download and play with it.
You'll know it's a success when you start getting feature request email with an overwhelming sense of entitlement ;-p
- d.