On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 06:28:40PM +0000, Gary C Martin wrote: > Hi Justin, > > On 12 Dec 2009, at 16:17, Justin Lewis wrote: > > > I am not the author of Bundle. If people would like to test it, fine by > > me. This was written mainly to get some sort of file transfer system on > > the olpc. Another reason is on the 84, it seems you have to pick a file > > and send it to a specific user, where this system lets you pick files and > > then send them to anyone who has joined. > > +1! > > Being able to publish a number of items for download is a very useful feature > (imagine a teacher sharing several resources for a specific class lesson). > Thanks for stepping up to do this. There has been talk on Journal at some > future point providing something similar, but to be honest a really > clean/simple/robust activity would be better, why? > > 1). Journal could be kept clean and simple instead of trying to overload it > with multiple types of sharing features (technically possible, but the design > will just get more and more unusable until it looks like a Microsoft office > product).
Well, maybe I wasn't so clear in that question, but the final target of Journal Plugins was 1) technical, make core development process more flexible and 2) social, encourage non core developers to experiment with Journal. And I see what people think about this proposal - fat journal application. At the end I wasn't sure that plugins should work in shell process. One of consequence of 1) is having some kind of shell integration. That could be very useful if activities like that, will be more integrated to the shell UI e.g. this activity will behave like "regular" GUI downloader, so needs at least notification area integration from shell(or so). I'm going to rename "Journal Plugins" feature to "Shell UI integration".. -- Aleksey _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
