On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Eben Eliason <eben.elia...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Aleksey Lim <alsr...@member.fsf.org> wrote: >> Proposal. >> >> To achieve this target, instead of inventing new versioning scheme in sugar >> (in addition to Journal), I propose treat Activities as regular Journal >> objects. > > I'm a little confused by this comment, as this is already the case. > Activities have entries in the Journal just as anything else does, and > are, in fact, objects in that sense. They're "special" objects since > they spawn fresh new objects by default, but the activity bundle is > still an object in itself, and should be resumable with other > activities which understand that object type (develop is one example; > a future "bundle" (zip) activity would be another).
I think the Journal is capable of holding activity *bundles* as objects. But the actual activity that you launch lives in /home/user/Activities or in /usr/share/sugar/activities and has no connection back to its downloaded Journal object. It sounds like Aleksey is proposing unpacking the activity bundles into the Journal, which is a really interesting idea! It would certainly provide a future path for activity versioning, promote the creation and modification of activities to be at the same level as creating and modifying activity instances, allow users a way to transfer their created activities around, etc. My only concern is that it might blur activities and activity instances for users, which could inhibit the conceptual development of this important computer concept. Cheers, Wade _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
