[Sugar-devel] Collaboration support for sugar web activities
dwnarvaez at gmail.com
Wed Feb 19 06:17:43 EST 2014
With making the protocol more complex do you mean that the activity would
send both presence information (the registration stuff you mention) and
messages for other clients on the same channel? Or would registration still
go through the shell?
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014, Emil Dudev <emildudev at gmail.com> wrote:
> > wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:00:07AM +0200, Emil Dudev wrote:
>> > The thing I'm facing is that there is telepathy 'magic' code both in
>> > sugar's core and sugar's toolkit (per activity/process). I writing
>> > 'magic', because I don't understand it, and I have tried. If
>> > sugar's core is responsible entirely for the meshbox, it should know
>> > which of the user's currently running activities are shared, so it
>> > can announce it. If I make the activity responsible for itself with
>> > the server (regarding the meshbox), it would mean that each activity
>> > will open an extra connection to the server. Which is something I
>> > want to avoid.
>> Why do you want to avoid an extra connection?
>> I speculate:
>> Are you that short of resources on your target platform that an
>> additional TCP/IP connection is a concern? Is it the latency of
>> starting an additional connection that makes this unwieldy? Is your
>> server limited to a specific number of simultaneous connections?
>> Since the decisions were made for the Sugar core in 2006, much has
>> changed, and server and network resources are no longer as
>> constrained. You should feel less constrained, and if there is doubt
>> you should test.
> Resources are not a problem (yet).
> I want to avoid the extra connection (per activity), mostly because there
> is no reason for it. The only thing that connection is for, is to
> 'register' a shared activity, by sending 4-5 of it's properties (activity
> id, bundle, color, name). I find that this is a waste of resources.
> For now, I think it would be best to make the protocol more complex on the
> server side. This should eliminate the need for the extra connection. And
> (thinking again for the future) it should work well with activities ran
> from a normal browser (not inside sugar).
> Emil Dudev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Sugar-devel