Hello, > > I would like the ability to exploit other active activities in my own > > activity. > > Rainbow is designed to specifically disallow this.
What I'm going to write here is not really based on the current code (of which I don't know too much detail), but just an idea (tually based on an idea of my colleagues)... If activities do not always have to run in full-screen, and each activity exposes some of its capabilities and properties so that they can be accessed via DBus or some other inter-process messaging mechanism, these activities don't have to be running in the same address space, and don't have to share files to work together. X Window System can surely display many windows and doesn't care if these windows are created from the same process or not. To the user, a window created by a process for an activity would just look like a fat "widget". It would be OpenDoc on X with process separation, sort of. In a sense, this would not be that big departure from current Sugar+DBus combination. A security system for it could still decide which activity can see whose property, so it can be effective. > > If a video conference is already active, and the participants wish to > > PlayGo I would like to have a panel in the PlayGo application that > > allows the video call to continue throughout the game. I came upon this > > idea when I was trying to duplicate the Chat activity within PlayGo just > > to allow the players to talk to one another. I asked my self, why > > duplicate code, connections and system resources that are probably > > already running in RAM? > > Sugar will gain a feature called overlay chat, once we've got higher > priority collaboration stuff completed, which will automagically add > chat functionality to any (sugarised, python) activity. There's no time > frame on this feature yet though. But think about more general cases. Imagine a user wants to create a multimedia document with movie, audio, text, painting, etc., etc. laid out in one document on one screen. (Let's say a realization of BulletinBoard activity.). If you can use existing activities to write yours, it would be so simple. To the user, it just looks like a multimedia document and each of these media objects are alive, but internally, they are different processes, looking at different directory, and doesn't know each other. I think OLPC people heard about it and/or thought about it. I admit that if each activity consumes 15MB or such, this wouldn't fly. Nonetheless I think this is an iteresting thought. -- Yoshiki _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel