[Sugar-devel] Share button in the activity toolbar (from the toolbar redesign thread)

[Simon Schampijer]

On 08/06/2009 03:37 PM, Eben Eliason wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>  wrote:
>> On 07/31/2009 05:14 PM, Eben Eliason wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Aleksey Lim<alsroot at member.fsf.org>
>>>   wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 02:05:48PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 13:47, Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>
>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>> Another question that came up today:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should the activity toolbar contain the "share" option by default?
>>>>>> Disabled by default?
>>>>> Maybe we could use the max_participants property to know when to
>>>>> disable the button?
>>> This makes sense to me. I think it's useful to keep it in view to
>>> indicate that the activity is private. A non-collaborative activity
>>> still has a sharing scope.
>>>
>>>> So, the question is - what is default value for max_participants :)
>>>>
>>>> In current code it equals to 0 but old sharing component compares it
>>>> with 1 thus share combo is visible by default.
>>> An activity that supports 0 participants (or fewer!) sounds pretty
>>> useless. Clearly 1 is the logical default for this property.
>>>
>>>> btw all activities, I've seen before that don't want sharing, hide
>>>> share combo by share.props.visible not by max_participants, I guess
>>>> it signalizes about not consistency of current implementation where
>>>> user can hide/show share button by two different methods.
>>> Yup, we should push towards consistency here. I'd bet activities
>>> wouldn't bother to hide it if Sugar made it insensitive properly.
>>>
>>> Eben
>> So, sounds like max-participants should be set to '1' by default. And we use
>
> Definitely.
>
>> this value to display the sharing option or not.
>>
>> Or did you mean to display it and make it sensitive/insensitive, Eben?
>
> I think it should always be shown, but made insensitive accordingly
> based on max_participants.
>
> Eben

Sounds good to me.

Thanks for following up,
    Simon