[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] Activity version compatibility
wadetb at gmail.com
Fri Oct 16 22:35:02 EDT 2009
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Gary C Martin <gary at garycmartin.com> wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2009, at 15:29, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 05:35, Wade Brainerd <wadetb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> BTW, we should still answer the question of the activity.info field...
>>> Seems like there 3 options to me:
>>> 1) Deprecate host_version in the activity.info spec. Activity developers
>>> write code to test for presence non-BC APIs and provide fallbacks (or
>>> let activities fail to launch/work).
> FWIW 1) is the one I've been following (testing for available features,
> providing fallbacks, accept failure to launch reports as bugs to fix). It
> seems to just be a small number of current Sucrose activities that are
> genuinely backwards incompatible with previous Sugar releases.
>>> 2) Keep host_version as an incrementing number, make activityfactory
>>> it, and bump the Sugar number from 1 to 2 in 0.86.1 to reflect the
>>> 3) Deprecate host_version, introduce sugar_version which is set to the
>>> oldest Sugar version number the activity is compatible with.
> I'd not object to 3) if someone really has a bee in their bonnet ;-b but I'd
> be unlikely to use it, and don't see it helping in many real user cases (it
> just provides an opportunity to show a prettier error message). Sugar
> platform releases seem pretty far down the scale of reasons for most launch
> failures, 95% of such cases will be covered by a smarter pulsing-window
> launcher for when an Activity fails (bad distro installs, latest
> architecture flavour of the week, missing platform dependancies, new changes
> in Sugar that break old code, un-anticipitated security permissions, actual
> bugs, users hacking on and breaking code).
I'm also in favor of 1) as a starting point. I will submit a patch to
remove all references to host_version and remove it from the
If in the future we realize we need something better, we could talk
about 3) again. Totally agree w.r.t. most activity failures.
More information about the Sugar-devel