> Activity bundles are not currently automatically retrieved (or if they are, > it's through some mechanism that has nothing to do with us).
OK. I know that's been the intent. I'll have to see what the goals are for trial 3 in that regard. We may ignore it for now, though I'd rather not have a bunch of instances where silent failure occurs come FRS. > > Ah, I see. Well looking at it solely from a user experience perspective, > > I'd say we need to do this. Of course, you could implement it by revoking > > the invitation when no more invitation renewals come through, but then you > > will most likely have a delay of several minutes between the time your > > friend leaves (or the activity disappears) and the invitation goes away. It > > would be much better to have that feedback sooner (immediately). > > This lag is pretty much unavoidable, in the "inviter fell off the network" > case - they've just fallen off the network, so they can't possibly tell you > "by > the way, I disappeared"! In the "inviter left of their own accord" case, > yes, they could send an explicit "uninvitation" at that time. Right. Network instability aside, sooner is better. Still, I'm not going to put up a strong fight for this in the near term. There are more important items to focus on for sure. > > Well, signaling the activity on the split isn't the hard part, right? I > > mean, Abiword would probably carry on with 2 people in each session instead > > of 4. Connect would probably run some turn timer, waiting for the missing > > player for a short time, and then eventually drop them out of the game. > > ... and that's why we've deemed that this problem is out-of-scope for > Telepathy, which is what I'm trying to design right now. > > > The trickier part is what happens when they come back in contact. With the > > PS signal the activity when the participants are present again? > > In my proposed design, the Telepathy CM will emit a signal when > participants rejoin. I'd expect the activity to listen for these signals > rather than having PS forward them, at least until/unless Bitfrost makes > this impossible. As a clarification of terms, should this signal be emitted when the participants *reappear*? That is, I interpret "rejoin" above as an explicit action, whereas I'd expect that the PS/activity/Sugar all work together in some fashion to decide if an implicit rejoin should happen at the activity's behest. > > It sounds > > like Sugar is going to need some well finessed ways of communicating with > > the activities here in order to do the right thing in UI. For instance, if > > connect is still waiting for the missing player, who comes back, it should > > happily allow them to rejoin the instance and continue playing. If one or > > both Abiword documents changed in the meantime, it might require assigning > > them separate version numbers and tell sugar to "split" them in the UI, so > > that both appear independently on the mesh. I agree it's up to the > > activity, but Sugar has to be told how the activity wants to handle it. > > I think the only way we can do this sanely is for the activity to make > the decisions and signal back to Sugar somehow. Out of scope for > Telepathy, anyway. Yup. > > Yeah, that's interesting. To be even more clear, do you mean that this > > would be an explicit renewal (The kid says "It's been a while since I > > invited Bobby, let me go invite him again") or implicit (Sugar recognizes > > that I'm still participating in the activity I sent an invitation for and > > automatically sends renewals on some interval)? > > Implicit; it'd probably be the Presence Service that's responsible for > sending re-invitations, and for inferring from the absence of a > re-invitation that the invitation has expired. Sounds good. - Eben _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
