> If I remember correctly Emil also agreed that the new framework should be independent from telepathy
It seems there were two separate threads of the same name: 1 - http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2014-January/046687.html 2 - http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2014-January/046773.html and I just read the first one >_< Anyway, it's good to see that we don't want to use telepathy for this. So, I'll go ahead and take a look at Emil's code and run it. Will reply back at this thread soon. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: > If I remember correctly Emil also agreed that the new framework should be > independent from telepathy at some point and even worked on it. > > > On 9 March 2014 06:45, Prasoon Shukla <prasoon92.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Sam. Sorry for the late response but I was occupied with academics. >> >> Anyway, I need to bother you again with some questions. >> >> So, I went through the thread by Emil Dudev and read the arguments he >> made in favour of not using the mozilla node server and using telepathy >> instead. To that, dnarvaez said that using the node server might be a >> better idea since the current protocol is very unstable. >> >> Now, I am somewhat familiar with sugar codebase but certainly not enough >> to actually discuss the merits or demerits of either of these approaches >> (although personally, I like better the idea of all communication happening >> over websocket via a node server). So, the final decision on which approach >> to take will be in the hands of those more experienced. But as I said >> before, I would prefer it if we use the websocket protocol to have this >> kind of architecture: >> >> |Sugar Web Activity| <-----> |Sugar Shell| >> \ >> \ >> websocket >> \ >> |Node Server| >> / >> / >> / >> |Sugar Web Activity| <-----> |Sugar Shell| >> >> instead of the usual telepathy based communication. This I would like >> because: >> 1. We'll be able to use the mozilla server with modifications as needed. >> 2. We'll be able to use the *huge* node.js ecosystem for realtime >> communication in any way we want! And, websocket is very versatile - we >> can send pretty much any binary data over the network. >> >> Also, I've worked with node before and found the communication to be >> quite reliable (which it is not with the current XMPP based protocol, if I >> understood dnarvaez correctly). That said, I've only tested out my node >> based work with a handful of people, so... >> >> The only downside is the need to have a node server running. For the case >> when there is not internet connectivity, I think we can make a set of >> scripts that can be called to run a node server on the one of the machines, >> say that of the teacher, and all others will connect to it. And of course, >> this process needs to be simple. >> >> Anyway, it just seems right to me to augment JS activities with a JS >> based collaboration framework. But of course, I don't really know the >> details all too well to be making the decision here. >> >> So, can you please comment on this? Once this decision is made, I can >> start working on my application. >> >> Thanks >> ᐧ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sugar-devel mailing list >> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Narvaez >
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel