[Sugar-devel] Using Sugarizer as development environment for Sugar Web Activities

[Sam Parkinson]

Hi Lionel.

I see there are some issues.

Do we have a virtual box image for sugar build? It would be easy for new
developers.

Sam
On Feb 16, 2014 7:58 AM, "Lionel Laské" <lionel at olpc-france.org> wrote:

> Hi Daniel, hi Sam,
>
> Except if I don't understand your idea, copying the result of the "volo
> create" command is exactly what I've done in my Sugarizer ActivityTemplate
> directory [1]. So a new developer just need to copy this directory to
> create its new activity.
>
> The problem is that currently the sugar-web framework for Sugarizer is
> slightly different than the one for Sugar. It's mainly related to
> datastore.js and dbus.js that use localstorage and querystring handling.
> I'm sure it could be re-conciliated if we find a way to differentiate
> running in Sugar and running in Sugarizer. In my opinion, it's the major
> issue, then developers will be free to use any development environment.
>
> @Daniel, You're right, I'm going to update the png.
>
>                Lionel.
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/llaske/Sugarizer/tree/master/activities/ActivityTemplate
>
>
> 2014-02-15 21:26 GMT+01:00 Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>:
>
>> Yeah my concern with that was conficts between files with are checked in
>> git and those pulled by volo. Normally you don't want to include the libs
>> in git for that reason. Though here it's probably fine because people won't
>> base their activities on the git repository, just on the files contained in
>> it. So that's probably the best solution. And we can link directly to the
>> zip file in the documentation.
>>
>>
>> On 15 February 2014 20:52, Sam Parkinson <sam.parkinson3 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I totally agree we need to do that, or maybe we could just include the
>>> libs in sugarlabs/sugar-web-template? Most people know how to press the
>>> download as zip button on github.
>>> On Feb 15, 2014 11:10 PM, "Daniel Narvaez" <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14 February 2014 21:27, Lionel Laské <lionel at olpc-france.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2014-02-14 14:13 GMT+01:00 Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Though I would like Sugarizer to be gradually merged into sugar-web
>>>>>> and the differences between the two environments to be reduced as much as
>>>>>> possible. Tons of do this on osbuild, do that on sugarizer is not going to
>>>>>> be maintainable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1. Be sure that I don't want to transform Sugarizer into a new Sugar,
>>>>> the more Sugar and Sugarizer could have in common, the better it will be.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> My main doubt is the node dependency, I tend to think we should
>>>>>> require it outside osbuild too. There are just too many useful tools in the
>>>>>> node ecosystem these days to avoid it... But of course there is an argument
>>>>>> that it would be making the barrier higher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a big fan of node.js but yes, I think it's a barrier. My dream is
>>>>> to have only a dependence on the browser and on... copy file. Even git is
>>>>> too complex for me!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What about publishing the result of volo create as a zip and changing
>>>> the documentation to point to it instead of the command. It seems like that
>>>> would remove the barrier and at the same time allow to use volo when
>>>> needed/wanted. Of course we first need to actually make a sugar-web that
>>>> works both in the browser and in sugar but as soon as that's done...
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>>>> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Narvaez
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20140216/39a3aefd/attachment-0001.html>