[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] Share sugar objects on a standalone server

[Aleksey Lim]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:11:15AM +0100, Gary C Martin wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2009, at 02:21, Aleksey Lim wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 08:03:15PM -0500, David Farning wrote:
> >>On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Aleksey
> >>Lim<alsroot at member.fsf.org> wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:17:13AM +0000, Aleksey Lim wrote:
> >>>>Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>>One of lacks that sugar environment has is simple way to
> >>>>share sugar
> >>>>objects for broad audience i.e. like scratch community has[1]
> >>>>(thanks to davidmorris form #sugar).
> >>>>
> >>>>So, I've created [2]. Original idea was having highly
> >>>>integrated sharing
> >>>>features into sugar shell but looks like we can do simple
> >>>>things first
> >>>>and even utilize only Browse for browsing/download/upload
> >>>>sugar objects.
> >>>>
> >>>>The problem is - what web engine we should use.
> >>>>
> >>>>* Utilize AMO[3] engine which is used in activities.sugarlabs.org
> >>>>  in that case we can create something like
> >>>>library.sugarlabs.org to not
> >>>
> >>>Pro:
> >>>* we do not split users behaviour, they need the same experience
> >>> that ASLO requires
> >>>* one common branding for activities and objects sites
> >>>* AMO has sufficient(imo) functionality - reviews, ranking,
> >>>collections
> >>> and thumbs mode
> >>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:2/cat:all?sort=popular
> >>>* we hack AMO code anyway - its not a problem in adding new
> >>>AMO environment
> >>>
> >>>Contra:
> >>* Locality - In may instances the stuff created by students will only
> >>be of interest to their friends, teachers, and parent.  Serving via
> >>ASLO publishes the content globally.
> >
> >"publishes the content globally" is the original purpose for this
> >feature
> >in contrast with
> >http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Peer_to_Peer_Objects_Sharing
> >
> >Or you mean possibility to share objects on local servers?
> 
> Would be really good if we could just get the uploading of Journal
> entries via Browse working reliably, right now it's only certain
> simple object types (png, pdf, etc) that work reasonably.

What do you mean exactly?
Object chooser can pick any type of objects including "anything" option.

> Then any
> one of the above solutions could be used at the desecration of a
> deployment

> (FWIW I favour wikis for this).

I'm just thinking that we may want to meet the same benefits when we chose
ASLO instead of using wiki for activities repository.

> Need to make sure we have a clear message for Activity authors in
> providing uploadable/downloadable Journal entries with valid mime
> types, and perhaps even extensions (so passing entries through other
> OSs doesn't mangle them).
> 
> To be honest I'm not too clear of all this myself, and the testing
> we did at SugarCamp failed, and gave us a long list of todos (Browse
> upload/download name mangling was one of them).
> 
> Test case:
> 1) Create a new TurtleArt activity
> 2) Upload the new entry to the SL wiki using Browse
> 3) Use Browse to download the entry back to Journal
> 4) Resume it from Journal
> 
> This should ideally work for all Activities, then folks can actually
> start creating and distributing content/activities directly using
> Sugar, for other Sugar users.

Thanks, I've tuned
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Server_Objects_Sharing

-- 
Aleksey