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

[Aleksey Lim]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:42:57PM +0100, Gary C Martin wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2009, at 10:11, Aleksey Lim wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:48:10AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >>On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 04:43, Aleksey
> >>Lim<alsroot at member.fsf.org> wrote:
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>The root of the problem is that we are uploading files, not entries.
> >>Some activities store files in their entries in formats commonly used
> >>and known. But others will store a json file and after upload nobody
> >>knows what to do with it.
> >>
> >>The good news is that we have already a format for packaging full
> >>journal entries in zip files and after downloading such an entry
> >>bundle it will be expanded and restored in the journal will all the
> >>metadata, etc.
> 
> +1, had this same thought last night :-)
> 
> >>What we would need is for a simple way to upload these bundled
> >>entries
> >>instead of just the file.
> >>
> >>Any ideas about how would look the UI like?
> >
> >I'm thinking about implicit behaviour,
> >like while choosing objects for input fields in Browse
> >we can package chosen object to bundle
> 
> As per my other email we currently have "Activities" and "Objects"
> in the Journal. Objects could be implicitly uploaded by Browse as
> regular files,

Objects need to be bundled as well e.g. package tags that were added by
user after downloading this object to Journal.

-- 
Aleksey