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

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 16:49, Aleksey Lim<alsroot at member.fsf.org> wrote:
> 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.

Agreed, would be a pity to lose the metadata. Also, when we have the
separation between actions and objects, why would we be interested in
sharing actions?

Regards,

Tomeu