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

[Daniel Narvaez]

In theory, yes. We could add support for the web socket based framework to
the python toolkit.


On 9 March 2014 13:33, Tony Anderson <tony_anderson at usa.net> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> It sounds like the school server should be the node server.
>
> Does this proposed implementation support python sugar activities?
>
> Tony
>
> On 03/09/2014 07:32 AM, sugar-devel-request at lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:12:56 +0100
> From: Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>
> To: Prasoon Shukla <prasoon92.iitr at gmail.com> <prasoon92.iitr at gmail.com>
> Cc: Sugar-dev Devel <sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org> <sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org>,	Sam Parkinson
> 	<sam.parkinson3 at gmail.com> <sam.parkinson3 at gmail.com>, Emil Dudev <emildudev at gmail.com> <emildudev at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] Regarding JS collaboration project
> Message-ID:
> 	<CANTHhva+dF2iHcGof2L5QmbO3XhFSUUxuUKHGfyhTqovHw4A1Q at mail.gmail.com> <CANTHhva+dF2iHcGof2L5QmbO3XhFSUUxuUKHGfyhTqovHw4A1Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> If I remember correctly Emil also agreed that the new framework should be
> independent from telepathy at some point and even worked on it.
>
>
> On 9 March 2014 06:45, Prasoon Shukla <prasoon92.iitr at gmail.com> <prasoon92.iitr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>  > 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 needs 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-0001.html>