[Sugar-devel] new feature for 102: Launch Limits

[Gonzalo Odiard]

I can't think now a example, but a integer is more future proof.

Gonzalo

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it useful for maximum_instances to be different from 1? Otherwise I tend
> to think a single_instance boolean would make more sense and allow a better
> alert.
>
>
> On 5 November 2013 18:53, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I wrote up a page for a proposed enhancement to set limit to open
>> activities and open instances [1].
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> At the request of OLPC AU (in an effort to reduce OOM freezes) this
>> patch uses gconf to set a maximum number of open activities. An alert
>> is shown if the user tries to launch more activities than the maximum
>> asking them to close an activity before opening a new one. If
>> maximum_number_of_open_activites is not set or == 0, then there is no
>> maximum limit applied.
>>
>> Further, Some activities don't behave well if more than one instance
>> is open (e.g., SL #4554). This patch sets a limit on the number open
>> instances of an activity based on a new field in activity.info:
>> maximum_instances.
>>
>> If and only if the maximum_instances field is present in
>> activity.info, is it used to set the limit of open instances.
>>
>>
>> thanks for your consideration.
>>
>> -walter
>>
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/LaunchLimits
>>
>> --
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>