Sugar demo 3: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== TODO == |
== TODO == |
||
* Turn the presence service in a DBUS service, to simplify the code and decrease network usage. |
|||
... |
|||
* Fix the misuse of zeroconf service types. |
|||
* Define an API that makes straight forward the most common case: activity specific service browing. |
|||
* It should not be necessary to write a Shell per each activity to manage multiple activities in the same process. |
|||
* Abstract activity construction. |
|||
* Move the one-to-one chat listener inside the shell |
|||
* Get rid of xembed and use matchbox for window management (on the OLPC) |
|||
* Improve multi cast reliability. The use case is out of school small groups of kids. |
|||
* Start defining contributors development tools (build, coding, testing) |
|||
See [[Sugar architecture review 1]] and [[Sugar design review 3]] for an higher level introduction to the demo goals. |
See [[Sugar architecture review 1]] and [[Sugar design review 3]] for an higher level introduction to the demo goals. |
||
Revision as of 02:53, 30 June 2006
The target date for completion is 21 July 2006.
TODO
- Turn the presence service in a DBUS service, to simplify the code and decrease network usage.
- Fix the misuse of zeroconf service types.
- Define an API that makes straight forward the most common case: activity specific service browing.
- It should not be necessary to write a Shell per each activity to manage multiple activities in the same process.
- Abstract activity construction.
- Move the one-to-one chat listener inside the shell
- Get rid of xembed and use matchbox for window management (on the OLPC)
- Improve multi cast reliability. The use case is out of school small groups of kids.
- Start defining contributors development tools (build, coding, testing)
See Sugar architecture review 1 and Sugar design review 3 for an higher level introduction to the demo goals.