On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:48:10AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 04:43, Aleksey Lim<alsr...@member.fsf.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:11:15AM +0100, Gary C Martin wrote: > >> On 17 Jul 2009, at 02:21, Aleksey Lim wrote: > >> > >> >On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 08:03:15PM -0500, David Farning wrote: > >> >>On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Aleksey > >> >>Lim<alsr...@member.fsf.org> wrote: > >> >>>On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:17:13AM +0000, Aleksey Lim wrote: > >> >>>>Hi all, > >> >>>> > >> >>>>One of lacks that sugar environment has is simple way to > >> >>>>share sugar > >> >>>>objects for broad audience i.e. like scratch community has[1] > >> >>>>(thanks to davidmorris form #sugar). > >> >>>> > >> >>>>So, I've created [2]. Original idea was having highly > >> >>>>integrated sharing > >> >>>>features into sugar shell but looks like we can do simple > >> >>>>things first > >> >>>>and even utilize only Browse for browsing/download/upload > >> >>>>sugar objects. > >> >>>> > >> >>>>The problem is - what web engine we should use. > >> >>>> > >> >>>>* Utilize AMO[3] engine which is used in activities.sugarlabs.org > >> >>>> in that case we can create something like > >> >>>>library.sugarlabs.org to not > >> >>> > >> >>>Pro: > >> >>>* we do not split users behaviour, they need the same experience > >> >>> that ASLO requires > >> >>>* one common branding for activities and objects sites > >> >>>* AMO has sufficient(imo) functionality - reviews, ranking, > >> >>>collections > >> >>> and thumbs mode > >> >>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:2/cat:all?sort=popular > >> >>>* we hack AMO code anyway - its not a problem in adding new > >> >>>AMO environment > >> >>> > >> >>>Contra: > >> >>* Locality - In may instances the stuff created by students will only > >> >>be of interest to their friends, teachers, and parent. Serving via > >> >>ASLO publishes the content globally. > >> > > >> >"publishes the content globally" is the original purpose for this > >> >feature > >> >in contrast with > >> >http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Peer_to_Peer_Objects_Sharing > >> > > >> >Or you mean possibility to share objects on local servers? > >> > >> Would be really good if we could just get the uploading of Journal > >> entries via Browse working reliably, right now it's only certain > >> simple object types (png, pdf, etc) that work reasonably. > > > > What do you mean exactly? > > Object chooser can pick any type of objects including "anything" option. > > The root of the problem is that we are uploading files, not entries. > Some activities store files in their entries in formats commonly used > and known. But others will store a json file and after upload nobody > knows what to do with it. > > The good news is that we have already a format for packaging full > journal entries in zip files and after downloading such an entry > bundle it will be expanded and restored in the journal will all the > metadata, etc. > > What we would need is for a simple way to upload these bundled entries > instead of just the file. > > Any ideas about how would look the UI like?
I'm thinking about implicit behaviour, like while choosing objects for input fields in Browse we can package chosen object to bundle -- Aleksey _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel