On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:54:45PM -0400, Wade Brainerd wrote: > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Eben Eliason <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Aleksey Lim <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Proposal. > >> > >> To achieve this target, instead of inventing new versioning scheme in sugar > >> (in addition to Journal), I propose treat Activities as regular Journal > >> objects. > > > > I'm a little confused by this comment, as this is already the case. > > Activities have entries in the Journal just as anything else does, and > > are, in fact, objects in that sense. They're "special" objects since > > they spawn fresh new objects by default, but the activity bundle is > > still an object in itself, and should be resumable with other > > activities which understand that object type (develop is one example; > > a future "bundle" (zip) activity would be another). > > I think the Journal is capable of holding activity *bundles* as > objects. But the actual activity that you launch lives in > /home/user/Activities or in /usr/share/sugar/activities and has no > connection back to its downloaded Journal object. > > It sounds like Aleksey is proposing unpacking the activity bundles > into the Journal, which is a really interesting idea! It would > certainly provide a future path for activity versioning, promote the > creation and modification of activities to be at the same level as > creating and modifying activity instances, allow users a way to > transfer their created activities around, etc.
Exactly, of course I know that we have .xo stored in Journal but they are "dead" activities - user can use only one of them(and only non fructose activities since 0.84 cannot upgrade activities installed in /usr) and if user hacked activity in ~/Activities all his work will be removed after next upgrading(there is an option to exec `cp -r` in Terminal but is it the sugar way). I purpose using activities from Journal like a regular jobjects - open it(any version not only last) in some kind of devel activity(at least in Terminal+vim:) change it, run it(w/o any tricks). And do this with many versions of one particular activity simultaneously. Moreover having all these versions we'll have to store many "non-dead" activities at the same time: last "official" version to collab with most of our fiends and bunch of custom versions to collab with friends who use their own hacked versions(it will look like if I want to join party and they use custom version sugar could download that version to my box before joining). > > My only concern is that it might blur activities and activity > instances for users, which could inhibit the conceptual development of > this important computer concept. > > Cheers, > Wade > -- Aleksey _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
