Gary C Martin wrote: > On 15 Jun 2009, at 01:59, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: > >> Bobby Powers wrote: >>> Sounds great! Are you expecting more performance gains in the future? >> >> Only if someone implements them! > > Definitely has my interest!! > > Useful collaboration is _really_ tough, your Groupthink potentially > offers a generalised sync solution for many Activity authors. Concrete > example for me: It would seem to make a good collaboration back end for > Labyrinth mind-maps. Mind-maps are generally fairly small (XML) > documents (at least good ones are). Labyrinth does support adding > drawings and images as nodes, but I can try to deal with those as unique > hashed text identities for collaborative sessions, and transfer/sync > their actual raw content via other mechanisms when they change. > > Would be great to have the ability for a handful of folks to collaborate > on creating mind-maps together in realtime.
I agree. In fact, in groupthink_base.py there's an implementation of a shared Tree (in the graph-theoretic sense), which I wrote while trying to add collaboration to Tomeu's mind-map activity.* Structures for sharing arbitrary blobs would definitely be a welcome addition to Groupthink. --Ben *: There's also a SharedTreeStore in gtk_tools.py, wrapping the shared tree into the gtk TreeStore interface. However, neither data structure is at all tested, and both are probably full of bugs. I never got to try integrating this with Tomeu's activity, because I do all my testing on XOs, and the activity wouldn't run on 0.82
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
