[Sugar-devel] Collaboration support for sugar web activities
lionel at olpc-france.org
Sat Jan 11 06:19:12 EST 2014
Thanks for this work. Nice to see that you've done this experiment.
Here my feelings on collaboration. It should probably join the Daniel's
1) Sugar Web collaboration should be different than Sugar Collaboration. I
think that trying to join both will expand complexity. Plus I don't see any
use case where a Sugar Web Activity need to communicate with a Sugar Python
2) Of course if Sugar Web collaboration is different from Sugar Python
Collaboration, it ask the question how to handle network view, activity
invitation, join an activity, ... So invitation has probably to be handle
into each web activity and we'll have a degraded collaboration experience -
except in Sugarizer (see below).
3) In my opinion, Web Collaboration without a server (XS Server or an
Internet Server) has no sense. So I don't think we have to handle the
complexity for a stand alone collaboration into web activities.
4) TogetherJS is nice but I think that its GUI is too intrusive and force
us to respect some GUI stuff that are not really compliant with Sugar UI.
So, I'm feeling more comfortable with a more low level API. Suraj is
currently experimenting low level presence API using directly Web Socket
API. I wonder if we need a high level API.
5) I'm thinking to integrate collaboration in my Sugarizer prototype .
If we could reproduce all presence features in our Sugar web collaboration
API, I could fully reproduce network view, invitation/join in Sugarizer.
So, when Sugar Web Activities will work in Sugarizer, users will have a
full featured Sugar collaboration experience. It's why I think we should
have a full control of collaboration implementation instead of depending of
a tier API.
Just my thought.
Best regards from France.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Sugar-devel