[Its.an.education.project] Interface Definition for Activity Writers

[Mikus Grinbergs]

[In the 'On the Naming of Sugar' thread, 'Glucose' was proposed as 
the name of "the minimal system that must be added to a standard 
Linux distribution in order to enable Activities to run", 'Fructose' 
as the name of a set of (demonstration) Activities, and 'Sucrose' as 
the name for "a complete Sugar environment".  I believe we should 
also have a specific name for the __INTERFACE DEFINITION__ (between 
'Fructose'/'Glucose') to which all Activities need to be written. 
('Sweetness' was suggested as the name of the "the abstract design 
of Sugar's appearance and behavior" - but that name addresses the 
Sugar_User's interface.  My concern is the Sugar_Activity_Writer's 
interface.) ]

--------

In the 'OLPC News (2008-05-17) - Tech Team' posting, Kim writes:
> rebasing our builds ... by the weekend should have a build that
> can be tested.  At this point many activities will need some work.

I'm not sure what Kim meant by that last sentence.

I believe strongly that "outsiders" ought to be allowed to develop 
Activities.  If "rebasing" the XO builds (in this case from Fedora-7 
to Fedora-9) involves work for providers of Activities, that's to me 
a sign that the __interface definition__ (to 'Glucose') needs work.


Ideally, Activities ought not need changing, no matter what 
underlying (Linux) distribution is being used to run Sugar on.

The __interface definition__ that Activities need to adhere to must 
be written down in a SINGLE authoritative document (which needs a 
codename).  Whenever the __interface definition__ gets modified, the 
changes need to be explicitly highlighted, together with an 
explanation of how "obsolete" Activity_versions will behave if run 
with the now-different Sugar.


mikus