[Sugar-devel] Change request: Fix open with API

[Martin Abente]

Considering that James, Sam and I have reviewed and tested these changes,
the consensus is to include them to fix the API. Therefore, Gonzalo has
green light for merge.

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Tony Anderson <tony_anderson at usa.net> wrote:

>  Thanks James and Sam for your replies.
>
> The references to Rainbow Security model are a bit confusing. The Rainbow
> model was dropped by the second G1G1 as I recollect. As far as I can tell,
> Browse launches child processes (pdfviewer). These typically are
> represented in the frame by a grey circle.
>
> I apologize on the argparse issue, I am still with 13.2. I was confused by
> the documentation:
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Start_activity_from_another_activity
>
> "An activity can start other activity by:
>
>    - knowing the activity ID - starts that specific activity"
>
> I assume that is a typo and bundle_id is meant.
>  By having sugar-launch pass the -u (uri) and -o (object_id) options, it
> is possible now (and possibly since 0.82) to launch an activity by activity
> bundle_id either with a Journal object or a file from the Documents
> directory (visible in Journal) or a USB key (also visible in Journal).  I
> have been using the -o and -u options in sugar-launch for at least five
> years. This was discussed when this feature was first proposed.
>
> In effect, the api added to 106 is simply an alternate way to perform
> existing functions.
>
> Tony
>
> On 07/03/2015 09:29 AM, Sam P. wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> I think you have misunderstood the capabilities of the api.
>
> The api does not support launching with uris (which is something to look
> into for 108) or "activity ids".
>
> The api supports bundle ids (open a new terminal activity) and object ids
> (open this memorize set).  This allows for many of the use cases you
> described although being very simple.
>
> Directly using sugar-launch from activity processes is suboptimal, as
> activities should not launch child processes (Rainbow security model).
> This was discussed when the feature was being implemented.
>
> I do not see why a feature that has some use cases and does not
> destabilise the rest of the system should be dropped so late in the cycle.
>
> Thanks,
> Sam
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20150703/23733dd2/attachment.html>