Ok, I will do. Thanks all for the review and comments. Gonzalo
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Martin Abente < [email protected]> wrote: > Considering that James, Sam and I have reviewed and tested these changes, > the consensus is to include them to fix the API. Therefore, Gonzalo has > green light for merge. > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Tony Anderson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks James and Sam for your replies. >> >> The references to Rainbow Security model are a bit confusing. The Rainbow >> model was dropped by the second G1G1 as I recollect. As far as I can tell, >> Browse launches child processes (pdfviewer). These typically are >> represented in the frame by a grey circle. >> >> I apologize on the argparse issue, I am still with 13.2. I was confused >> by the documentation: >> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Start_activity_from_another_activity >> >> "An activity can start other activity by: >> >> - knowing the activity ID - starts that specific activity" >> >> I assume that is a typo and bundle_id is meant. >> By having sugar-launch pass the -u (uri) and -o (object_id) options, it >> is possible now (and possibly since 0.82) to launch an activity by activity >> bundle_id either with a Journal object or a file from the Documents >> directory (visible in Journal) or a USB key (also visible in Journal). I >> have been using the -o and -u options in sugar-launch for at least five >> years. This was discussed when this feature was first proposed. >> >> In effect, the api added to 106 is simply an alternate way to perform >> existing functions. >> >> Tony >> >> On 07/03/2015 09:29 AM, Sam P. wrote: >> >> Hi Tony, >> >> I think you have misunderstood the capabilities of the api. >> >> The api does not support launching with uris (which is something to look >> into for 108) or "activity ids". >> >> The api supports bundle ids (open a new terminal activity) and object ids >> (open this memorize set). This allows for many of the use cases you >> described although being very simple. >> >> Directly using sugar-launch from activity processes is suboptimal, as >> activities should not launch child processes (Rainbow security model). >> This was discussed when the feature was being implemented. >> >> I do not see why a feature that has some use cases and does not >> destabilise the rest of the system should be dropped so late in the cycle. >> >> Thanks, >> Sam >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sugar-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > -- Gonzalo Odiard SugarLabs - Software [for | by] children learning
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
