[Sugar-devel] Design help needed for web applications within Sugar

[Lucian Branescu]

View source would only be used for editing small things, like
TurtleArt code blocks and userstyles, but no actual activity code. The
activity would offer a list of pseudo-files that are to be edited by
users. Changes to these would be applied immediately in the activity,
so it would be easier to switch between View source and the activity.

Would you consider this case too much overloading?

2009/8/11 Eben Eliason <eben.eliason at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Lucian
> Branescu<lucian.branescu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/8/11 Simon Schampijer <simon at schampijer.de>:
>>> On 08/11/2009 12:14 PM, Lucian Branescu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In fact, there is the option to install the SSB activity as well,
>>>> http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/317039/create%20ssb.png
>>>
>>> Yes seen that.
>>>
>>>> rgs on IRC suggested that the 'Keep in Journal' button could either
>>>> save an offline version by itself or there could be a drop down with
>>>> several options.
>>>
>>> Do you mean the activity keep button? Like the one in Write - where we have
>>> the options to save a richt text format or others? If yes - yeah that sounds
>>> like a good option actually.
>>
>> I'll go ahead and try to implement that, then.
>>
>>>
>>>> About modifying SSBs, right now all the tools for modification are
>>>> inside the actul activity. I'd like to see modification of userscripts
>>>> and userstyles done in 'View Source' (as well).
>>>
>>> Oh, yeah view source. Sounds interesting to me, too. We just need to make
>>> sure to not overload it. I mean editing text is easy. When it comes to
>>> changing the icon it gets more complicated, though.
>>
>> Perhaps the Sugar shell should allow users to change activity icons?
>
> It's an unfortunate fact that there is no activity suitable for
> creating SVG icons for Sugar. We need a "Draw" activity to fill this
> gap and compliment Paint...
>
>> In any case, View Source already has Document view and Bundle view. We
>> could either expand Document view to have a TreeView on the left like
>> Bundle view or create a separate Editables view.
>
> I hesitate to overload the view source mechanism this way, actually.
> Should we instead be providing a seamless mechanism for modifying
> code, icons, etc. with other activities, so that users (eventually)
> have choices regarding their editors? View source is a logical step in
> the process, so we should certainly expose the ability to launch into
> editing from there, of course. I suppose an alternative argument can
> be made for the level of integration we could provide when editing
> within the view source dialog. If we could hook it up to have
> "real-time" effect on the running activity, so that making a change
> couldbe tested right away, that may make it worth doing...
>
> Eben
>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Simon
>>>
>>
>