[In the 'On the Naming of Sugar' thread, 'Glucose' was proposed as the name of "the minimal system that must be added to a standard Linux distribution in order to enable Activities to run", 'Fructose' as the name of a set of (demonstration) Activities, and 'Sucrose' as the name for "a complete Sugar environment". I believe we should also have a specific name for the __INTERFACE DEFINITION__ (between 'Fructose'/'Glucose') to which all Activities need to be written. ('Sweetness' was suggested as the name of the "the abstract design of Sugar's appearance and behavior" - but that name addresses the Sugar_User's interface. My concern is the Sugar_Activity_Writer's interface.) ]
-------- In the 'OLPC News (2008-05-17) - Tech Team' posting, Kim writes: > rebasing our builds ... by the weekend should have a build that > can be tested. At this point many activities will need some work. I'm not sure what Kim meant by that last sentence. I believe strongly that "outsiders" ought to be allowed to develop Activities. If "rebasing" the XO builds (in this case from Fedora-7 to Fedora-9) involves work for providers of Activities, that's to me a sign that the __interface definition__ (to 'Glucose') needs work. Ideally, Activities ought not need changing, no matter what underlying (Linux) distribution is being used to run Sugar on. The __interface definition__ that Activities need to adhere to must be written down in a SINGLE authoritative document (which needs a codename). Whenever the __interface definition__ gets modified, the changes need to be explicitly highlighted, together with an explanation of how "obsolete" Activity_versions will behave if run with the now-different Sugar. mikus _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar