Re: [Sugar-devel] On Sugar 0.84 - status of the Chat/collab leader issue...
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 15:19 +0100, Martin Langhoff wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Gary C Martin g...@garycmartin.com wrote: Other activities that support some form of collaboration like Chat, Browse, Etoys, TurtleArt, Arithmetic, Maze, Pippy, etc, etc, don't care who started the activity first, or who goes away. Are you positive about this? I don't meant to troll -- but I am seeing issues (with Chat for example) where if the leader goes, 3rd parties cannot join anymore. I tried to make rejoining work with Write, but ran into bugs into both the PS and Telepathy Gabble. For the PS bug, tomeu has a patch but it never went in. The Telepathy gabble bug prevented you from rejoining an existing tube, so it could never have worked for any application (including chat). The Telepathy gabble bug is fixed in F11 and F12, but I did not test if Write rejoining now works (it could still have bugs, simply because I could never test it). Cheers, Marc ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] On Sugar 0.84 - status of the Chat/collab leader issue...
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 17:40, David Van Assche dvanass...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, So I was looking over the code with some of the #telepathy guys who are also under the impression that sugar.presence code could be causing many of the collab problems. Main issue is redundancy of code... a lot of what is happening in sugar.presence already happens in telepathy (actually there are even comments in sugar.presence code stating this) but until we know to what level activities are using sugar.presence, we can't really do anything... since activities would break, I guess we'd need to know what in the sugar.presence modules is being really actively used to migrate to MC 5... and give a warning or something, or keep some kind of sym links to the old functions... I dunno, kinda above my level of expertise... Yes, info about presence is duplicated in several places. Any bugs at each layer can cause the unreliability we see. Regards, Tomeu regards, David van Assche On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 13:16, Benjamin M. Schwartz bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu wrote: Martin Langhoff wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, David Van Assche dvanass...@gmail.com wrote: moving to mission control 5 and letting go of the admittedly antiquated sugar presence now ... If you play with a major component replacement - test it for scalability stability over wifi before doing a lot of integration work It's worth noting that moving from the Sugar Presence Service to Mission Control 5 would not alter our network protocols. This is purely a change in how the client software is organized. Neither regression nor improvement in wireless network performance should occur. Was about to say this, the work means making sugar activities' code more similar to GNOME apps, while also removing a daemon. This could have some effect on how the network is used, but chances are it won't. As a first step in removing the PS, I think we should try to implement the python presence API with MC5 instead of PS. Then we can either drop the PS or make it a compatibility shim with MC5 while activities such as eToys make the move. We can also take the chance to develop a better API if there's need for it. But in any case, we need to do some exploration now before we can discuss it in detail. Regards, Tomeu -- «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David Farning ___ Sugar-devel mailing list sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach - Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. -- «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David Farning ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] On Sugar 0.84 - status of the Chat/collab leader issue...
Hi, So I was looking over the code with some of the #telepathy guys who are also under the impression that sugar.presence code could be causing many of the collab problems. Main issue is redundancy of code... a lot of what is happening in sugar.presence already happens in telepathy (actually there are even comments in sugar.presence code stating this) but until we know to what level activities are using sugar.presence, we can't really do anything... since activities would break, I guess we'd need to know what in the sugar.presence modules is being really actively used to migrate to MC 5... and give a warning or something, or keep some kind of sym links to the old functions... I dunno, kinda above my level of expertise... regards, David van Assche On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 13:16, Benjamin M. Schwartz bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu wrote: Martin Langhoff wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, David Van Assche dvanass...@gmail.com wrote: moving to mission control 5 and letting go of the admittedly antiquated sugar presence now ... If you play with a major component replacement - test it for scalability stability over wifi before doing a lot of integration work It's worth noting that moving from the Sugar Presence Service to Mission Control 5 would not alter our network protocols. This is purely a change in how the client software is organized. Neither regression nor improvement in wireless network performance should occur. Was about to say this, the work means making sugar activities' code more similar to GNOME apps, while also removing a daemon. This could have some effect on how the network is used, but chances are it won't. As a first step in removing the PS, I think we should try to implement the python presence API with MC5 instead of PS. Then we can either drop the PS or make it a compatibility shim with MC5 while activities such as eToys make the move. We can also take the chance to develop a better API if there's need for it. But in any case, we need to do some exploration now before we can discuss it in detail. Regards, Tomeu -- «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David Farning ___ Sugar-devel mailing list sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbachhttp://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/marie_von_ebnereschenbac.html - Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] On Sugar 0.84 - status of the Chat/collab leader issue...
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, David Van Assche dvanass...@gmail.com wrote: moving to mission control 5 and letting go of the admittedly antiquated sugar presence now In planning future work in rpesence and collab stuff, I have a small, humble suggestion. Figuring out if a presence service / collab infra works and scales properly on both wired and wireless networks is hard. Very hard. We've been gotten it wrong several times by looking at the theory (instead of hard-nosed testing). Right now we have something that -- while less than ideal -- at least works for a number of scenarios. If you play with a major component replacement - test it for scalability stability over wifi before doing a lot of integration work - do the integr work on a branch - test that the integrated thing works stable and scalable Of course that's ideal world stuff. However, the heart of the matter is: approach mission control tentatively... and at least _some_ significant testing needs to happen before it's merged... We've gotten this wrong a few times -- I am not keen on repeating the adventures... :-/ m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] On Sugar 0.84 - status of the Chat/collab leader issue...
Well, at least on Gnome, Mission Control not only works well, but its far more stable and does what its supposed to. Its been very heavily tested by Nokia (Maemo), Collabra, Google, openmoko and other heavy hitters. I don't really agree that we have something that works with sugar presence. In the majority of cases, where we've had testing sessions, though admittedly, with badly callibrated xmpp servers, I would go so far as to say that it was attrocious in terms of performance and stability. Once connected, collaboration worked great, but the stuff that happens before that, which is what sugar presence is supposed to be taking care of does not work well at all. If you take a look at telepathy-inspector and the advancements in telepathy itself, of which mission control 5 is one of the major overhauls, its massive improvement over the passed. And one of the main issues was that sugar presence used its own bindings, blind sighting a lot of what telepathy is doing, which is why currently it simply doesn't work. Without a xmpp server, you'll have a field day getting any kind of collaboration to work, and even with a really carefully setup ejabbberd server full of optimisations, I at least, have not been able to get the presence part to reliably do the same thing every time. Some times people show up, sometimes they dont sometimes 10 minutes later, sometimes with totally weird settings and names Its quite clear to me that what may have worked ok in 0.82, now does not. And to me that makes total sense, if u look at the timeline, the code, the blueprints, and most importantly, the actualised telepathy dbus bindings (The presence part has changed completely and looks nothing like it did when 0.82 and earlier were coded.) But dont take my word for it, take a look here and you'll see what I mean: http://people.collabora.co.uk/~danni/telepathy-book/chapter.accounts.html kind regards, David Van Assche On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, David Van Assche dvanass...@gmail.com wrote: moving to mission control 5 and letting go of the admittedly antiquated sugar presence now In planning future work in rpesence and collab stuff, I have a small, humble suggestion. Figuring out if a presence service / collab infra works and scales properly on both wired and wireless networks is hard. Very hard. We've been gotten it wrong several times by looking at the theory (instead of hard-nosed testing). Right now we have something that -- while less than ideal -- at least works for a number of scenarios. If you play with a major component replacement - test it for scalability stability over wifi before doing a lot of integration work - do the integr work on a branch - test that the integrated thing works stable and scalable Of course that's ideal world stuff. However, the heart of the matter is: approach mission control tentatively... and at least _some_ significant testing needs to happen before it's merged... We've gotten this wrong a few times -- I am not keen on repeating the adventures... :-/ m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- Stephen Leacock - I detest life-insurance agents: they always argue that I shall some day die, which is not so. - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/stephen_leacock.html ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] On Sugar 0.84 - status of the Chat/collab leader issue...
Don't get me wrong though, I agree thoroughly that we should really test it and make sure it plays as advertised But I think its gonna be easier to do that than test/scale/stabalise what we currently have. David On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:06 AM, David Van Assche dvanass...@gmail.com wrote: Well, at least on Gnome, Mission Control not only works well, but its far more stable and does what its supposed to. Its been very heavily tested by Nokia (Maemo), Collabra, Google, openmoko and other heavy hitters. I don't really agree that we have something that works with sugar presence. In the majority of cases, where we've had testing sessions, though admittedly, with badly callibrated xmpp servers, I would go so far as to say that it was attrocious in terms of performance and stability. Once connected, collaboration worked great, but the stuff that happens before that, which is what sugar presence is supposed to be taking care of does not work well at all. If you take a look at telepathy-inspector and the advancements in telepathy itself, of which mission control 5 is one of the major overhauls, its massive improvement over the passed. And one of the main issues was that sugar presence used its own bindings, blind sighting a lot of what telepathy is doing, which is why currently it simply doesn't work. Without a xmpp server, you'll have a field day getting any kind of collaboration to work, and even with a really carefully setup ejabbberd server full of optimisations, I at least, have not been able to get the presence part to reliably do the same thing every time. Some times people show up, sometimes they dont sometimes 10 minutes later, sometimes with totally weird settings and names Its quite clear to me that what may have worked ok in 0.82, now does not. And to me that makes total sense, if u look at the timeline, the code, the blueprints, and most importantly, the actualised telepathy dbus bindings (The presence part has changed completely and looks nothing like it did when 0.82 and earlier were coded.) But dont take my word for it, take a look here and you'll see what I mean: http://people.collabora.co.uk/~danni/telepathy-book/chapter.accounts.html kind regards, David Van Assche On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, David Van Assche dvanass...@gmail.com wrote: moving to mission control 5 and letting go of the admittedly antiquated sugar presence now In planning future work in rpesence and collab stuff, I have a small, humble suggestion. Figuring out if a presence service / collab infra works and scales properly on both wired and wireless networks is hard. Very hard. We've been gotten it wrong several times by looking at the theory (instead of hard-nosed testing). Right now we have something that -- while less than ideal -- at least works for a number of scenarios. If you play with a major component replacement - test it for scalability stability over wifi before doing a lot of integration work - do the integr work on a branch - test that the integrated thing works stable and scalable Of course that's ideal world stuff. However, the heart of the matter is: approach mission control tentatively... and at least _some_ significant testing needs to happen before it's merged... We've gotten this wrong a few times -- I am not keen on repeating the adventures... :-/ m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- Stephen Leacock - I detest life-insurance agents: they always argue that I shall some day die, which is not so. - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/stephen_leacock.html -- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach - Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/marie_von_ebnereschenbac.html ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] On Sugar 0.84 - status of the Chat/collab leader issue...
We can set a new baseline for Sugar, but the behavior you are describing is largely one determined by the activities themselves. This was the subject of Ben Schwartz's GSoC project. He made great headway, but there remains the problem that most activities are not utilizing his approach. Something else to discuss in Bolzano. (I am thinking we should have a day dedicated to bringing activities up to 0.86 standards.) -walter On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote: We have had major issues for a while with any collaboration where the leader (the node that created the collaboration instance) goes away. In Sugar 0.82 all sorts of confusion ensues, with the exact symptoms varying between the programs used. Is this expected to be fixed in 0.84 or 0.86? In looking at interaction with the XS, I am testing various aspects of collaboration... I don't want to pester people with things that are known not to work (and to require major engineering!). cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] On Sugar 0.84 - status of the Chat/collab leader issue...
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote: We can set a new baseline for Sugar, but the behavior you are describing is largely one determined by the activities themselves. I understood it was a limitation in Telepathy itself, or in how Sugar uses it (hence the need to address it in Sugar or in the Sugar Stack. Either way, I read in your reply that I shouldn't have hopes for it. Understood - thanks! m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] On Sugar 0.84 - status of the Chat/collab leader issue...
Hi Martin, On 3 Nov 2009, at 13:18, Martin Langhoff wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote: We can set a new baseline for Sugar, but the behavior you are describing is largely one determined by the activities themselves. I understood it was a limitation in Telepathy itself, or in how Sugar uses it (hence the need to address it in Sugar or in the Sugar Stack. Fairly sure this is not a limitation in Telepathy/Sugar. The only activity I'm aware of using a hub and spoke topology is Write, and I believe a recent AbiWord release has improved the collaboration code so that allows a re-election of a new hub, of the original goes away (also supports text colour highlighting for different users) – very keen to see this land in an image and give it a test. Other activities that support some form of collaboration like Chat, Browse, Etoys, TurtleArt, Arithmetic, Maze, Pippy, etc, etc, don't care who started the activity first, or who goes away. Regards, --Gary Either way, I read in your reply that I shouldn't have hopes for it. Understood - thanks! m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] On Sugar 0.84 - status of the Chat/collab leader issue...
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Gary C Martin g...@garycmartin.com wrote: Other activities that support some form of collaboration like Chat, Browse, Etoys, TurtleArt, Arithmetic, Maze, Pippy, etc, etc, don't care who started the activity first, or who goes away. Are you positive about this? I don't meant to troll -- but I am seeing issues (with Chat for example) where if the leader goes, 3rd parties cannot join anymore. It may be due to a problem somewhere, or it may be that it's just not supported. If it's expected to work, part of the supported Sugar featureset -- I'll follow it through. If it's not supposed to work, I'll stress about something else ;-) m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] On Sugar 0.84 - status of the Chat/collab leader issue...
Martin Langhoff wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Gary C Martin g...@garycmartin.com wrote: Other activities that support some form of collaboration like Chat, Browse, Etoys, TurtleArt, Arithmetic, Maze, Pippy, etc, etc, don't care who started the activity first, or who goes away. Are you positive about this? I don't meant to troll -- but I am seeing issues (with Chat for example) where if the leader goes, 3rd parties cannot join anymore. That is remarkable, and worth investigating. The Chat activity in particular is designed to survive loss of the initiator, and has been since the very first release. One related issue is http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/934 . Once the initiator leaves, the initiator can no longer re-join due to an issue in the GUI. That bug contains a patch, but it's unclear to me whether that patch was ever applied. Maybe Tomeu can clarify the situation. --Ben signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] On Sugar 0.84 - status of the Chat/collab leader issue...
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 15:07, Benjamin M. Schwartz bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu wrote: Martin Langhoff wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Gary C Martin g...@garycmartin.com wrote: Other activities that support some form of collaboration like Chat, Browse, Etoys, TurtleArt, Arithmetic, Maze, Pippy, etc, etc, don't care who started the activity first, or who goes away. Are you positive about this? I don't meant to troll -- but I am seeing issues (with Chat for example) where if the leader goes, 3rd parties cannot join anymore. That is remarkable, and worth investigating. The Chat activity in particular is designed to survive loss of the initiator, and has been since the very first release. One related issue is http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/934 . Once the initiator leaves, the initiator can no longer re-join due to an issue in the GUI. That bug contains a patch, but it's unclear to me whether that patch was ever applied. Maybe Tomeu can clarify the situation. It wasn't applied because without nobody else giving it a look and doing some testing it was too risky. It's not too late to make a new bugfix release that is shipped in SoaS2 or even in 0.84 on F11 on XO-1. Regards, Tomeu -- «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David Farning ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] On Sugar 0.84 - status of the Chat/collab leader issue...
Hey, I mentioned this to Walter on IRC the other day, but I'd very much like to participate in anything telepathy based, especially, maybe moving to mission control 5 and letting go of the admittedly antiquated sugar presence now, I do need some guidance though, as I am by no means a python guru, though I've really digested telepathy and have a pretty good feeling for the dbus bindings it has, as well as the way D-tubes work. I didnt realise the power of having basically networked dbus until I really got the d-tubes. It even lends a great deal of power to things like LTSP, by being able to remotely control rudimentary elements that are otherwise quite difficult (remote volume control, rmote power off, remote switch users, remote control of many kinds... I could imagine almost a remote dashboard... much like italc, but with more power. and able to do things I havent even thought about yet I know its exciting stuff though I dont thnink I'll be able to make it to Bolzano, but I understand there will be a strong remote presences... so I'd be happy to help out in that area, kind regards, David Van Assche On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 15:07, Benjamin M. Schwartz bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu wrote: Martin Langhoff wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Gary C Martin g...@garycmartin.com wrote: Other activities that support some form of collaboration like Chat, Browse, Etoys, TurtleArt, Arithmetic, Maze, Pippy, etc, etc, don't care who started the activity first, or who goes away. Are you positive about this? I don't meant to troll -- but I am seeing issues (with Chat for example) where if the leader goes, 3rd parties cannot join anymore. That is remarkable, and worth investigating. The Chat activity in particular is designed to survive loss of the initiator, and has been since the very first release. One related issue is http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/934 . Once the initiator leaves, the initiator can no longer re-join due to an issue in the GUI. That bug contains a patch, but it's unclear to me whether that patch was ever applied. Maybe Tomeu can clarify the situation. It wasn't applied because without nobody else giving it a look and doing some testing it was too risky. It's not too late to make a new bugfix release that is shipped in SoaS2 or even in 0.84 on F11 on XO-1. Regards, Tomeu -- «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David Farning ___ Sugar-devel mailing list sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- Samuel Goldwyn - I'm willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never wrong. - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/samuel_goldwyn.html ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
