Talk:Features/Server Objects Sharing
Considered using the school server for this? If/when we have backup, users could go to their backup page and set which entries they want to be public. tomeu 08:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agree the school server can be used for this purpose.
also this feature should describe what kind of objects do we want to share, the obvious thinking, is that these are journal objects, but the page doesn't do the description..(fixed Alsroot 10:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)) Rafael.
btw, school server is (according to School Server) just a general-purpose server, what web engine it should use; the idea is having this features in 0.86 w/o much coding in sugar, so all stuff should be done on server side(like AMO does) and using Browse as a client. Alsroot 10:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The XS is more than a general purpose server. It has a lot of capabilities that you may not be aware of. Please see http://wiki.laptop.org/go/School_server and http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XS_Release_Notes . Also it is worth looking at http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/server-devel/ for more information. You may want to actually install the XS and try working with it. Tinker 02:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- by "general purpose server" I meant that XS is not AMO(for example), I see that Moodle could be utilized to meet Features/Server_Objects_Sharing#Detailed_Description; imho since Moodle was created to satisfy more general needs, it doesn't fit well to Features/Server_Objects_Sharing#Detailed_Description in comparing with AMO or  otherwise why we decided to use AMO instead of XS for ASLO(in my mind we need something similar to ASLO but for objects instead of activities).
I think that Moodle might have a lead in this aspect because it is more easily available on the XS images. Installing ASLO/AMO is quite a bit complicated but the XS comes with a ready-to-run Moodle instance, AFAIK. Tomeu 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- in common case, yes(e.g. in case of local storage for class/school/region) but this particular proposal is about central place like ASLO for activities(at least it was); we already(in SL) have several not trivial to support services(wiki, track, ASLO etc.), so adding library.sl.o won't be a huge problem; imho from usability pov, I don't see any differences between wiki and moodle - they lose a game to special services like AMO and  when user needs only place to browse/download/upload objects. Alsroot 00:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I don't think the server side software it's important from the Sugar POV. We just need to make sure that we can correctly upload and download journal entries. So I'm fine with this feature as it is now. Thanks! Tomeu 13:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)