[Sugar-devel] Subject: Re: Regarding JS collaboration project

[Lionel Laské]

Nice sum up Prasoon !

+1 for the node.js server back office.
It will be easy to install it on a XSCE server and I'm starting to include
a node.js part to my Sugarizer Server so it could work too on Sugarizer.

Just as reminder, Suraj and I worked some months ago on:
- A feature list of what is need for collaboration in Sugar [1]
- A very basic implementation of websocket presence API on node.js [2].

Unfortunately none of us had time to work more on this. But it could be a
good start point for the collaboration project.

                 Lionel

[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FZRv0gSV--5Y4dvV9C9dk9K-LT7kEQEwQmX_xVX9H-s/edit
[2] https://github.com/surajgillespie/SugarPresenceAPI



> >
> >  > Hi Sam. Sorry for the late response but I was occupied with
> academics.>> Anyway, I need to bother you again with some questions.>> So,
> I went through the thread by Emil Dudev and read the arguments he made> in
> favour of not using the mozilla node server and using telepathy instead.>
> To that, dnarvaez said that using the node server might be a better idea>
> since the current protocol is very unstable.>> Now, I am somewhat familiar
> with sugar codebase but certainly not enough> to actually discuss the
> merits or demerits of either of these approaches> (although personally, I
> like better the idea of all communication happening> over websocket via a
> node server). So, the final decision on which approach> to take will be in
> the hands of those more experienced. But as I said> before, I would prefer
> it if we use the websocket protocol to have this> kind of architecture:>>
> |Sugar Web Activity| <-----> |Sugar Shell|>    \>     \>  websocket>
> \> |Node Server|>        />       /
>  >      /> |Sugar Web Activity| <-----> |Sugar Shell|>> instead of the
> usual telepathy based communication. This I would like> because:> 1. We'll
> be able to use the mozilla server with modifications as needed.> 2. We'll
> be able to use the **huge** node.js ecosystem for realtime> communication
> in any way we want! And, websocket is very versatile -  we> can send pretty
> much any binary data over the network.>> Also, I've worked with node before
> and found the communication to be quite> reliable (which it is not with the
> current XMPP based protocol, if I> understood dnarvaez correctly). That
> said, I've only tested out my node> based work with a handful of people,
> so...>> The only downside is the need to have a node server running. For
> the case> when there is not internet connectivity, I think we can make a
> set of> scripts that can be called to run a node server on the one of the
> machines,> say that of the teacher, and all others will connect to it. And
> of course,> this process nee
>  ds to be simple.>> Anyway, it just seems right to me to augment JS
> activities with a JS based> collaboration framework. But of course, I don't
> really know the details all> too well to be making the decision here.>> So,
> can you please comment on this? Once this decision is made, I can> start
> working on my application.>> Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20140309/2ddddac4/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
> End of Sugar-devel Digest, Vol 65, Issue 32
> *******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20140309/624eb228/attachment.html>