<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> 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: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Start_activity_from_another_activity">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Start_activity_from_another_activity</a> "An activity can start other activity by: <ul> <li> knowing the activity ID - starts that specific activity"</li> </ul> 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 <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/03/2015 09:29 AM, Sam P. wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:CACVKbrX+hVYP3uxtKrmetHOgHeg9WYss=g3P6xGPrzwvtpSXdw@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"> 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 </blockquote> </body> </html>