On 8 Aug 2010, at 20:38, Lucian Branescu <lucian.brane...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Imo a confirmation popup would become annoying very quickly. Also if the >> user refuses, the kernel will have soon to kill an activity, which is worst. > > Activities already write_file when they lose focus, they could > write_file periodically or at least when warned of low memory.
Yes, that's how I think it should work. Of course activities will need to do a better work to save all the possible state, because we are closing without user intervention. > >> >>> Apps like instant messaging(though I don't recall one for Sugar), would >>> definitely need a definitive opt out, no? >> >> Yeah, that's where things get tricky :/ Same issue with a background music >> player for example. Ideally we would just keep the connection open somehow >> and close the whole UI, but that's going to get complex. >> >> As long as this causes just minor annoyances to the user (like being >> disconnected or music stopping), I think it's probably something we don't >> need to solve in the first iteration. > > Separating the activity from the service would help here. In the case > of music, MPD would use a lot less memory than one of its GUIs. Right, I was thinking to something along these lines too. I'm not sure how the shell would enforce this policy though. Maybe we could allow the activity processes to use a minimum amount of memory when it has been asked to close. As I said, it gets complicated :) Marco >> _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
