bert wrote: > Am 23.10.2008 um 15:15 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > an addition to activity.info, with sensible defaults, would be the > > best bet, i think. > > This would mean that sometimes the shell and sometimes the activity > would have to handle that key, which is fragile. I'd opt for the shell > always handling the key, then trying to invoke the activity's view > source function, and if that fails, handle it itself. > > That "not handled by activity" case could of course be customized by > entries in activity.info.
sure, that's fine. but i think we need to keep thinking about how to support of non-, or not-fully-sugarized applications with every new feature we do (as well as with every revision of old features). paul =--------------------- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
