Workspace Next Sprint Organization

[Alex Fiestas]

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 01:20:21 PM Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:14:46 Alex Fiestas wrote:
> > So, what is the workspace for you?
> 
> the components that take care of supporting the working area of the computer
> and practices of the person using the system. these tasks include:
> 
> * user session start / stop / switch
> * power management
> * application launch
> * window management
> * locating resources available on or to the device
> * quick reference to information (some items in the system tray do this,
> some plasmoids do this)
> * interaction with system services (local file indexing, sound, networking,
> etc.)
> * presentation of actions belonging to "the system" (from a user's POV),
> which would include things like file operation progress or notifications
> 
> perhaps there are others as well. all of these bits need to be fit well
> together. and applications which don't play a key role in the above are not
> part of the workspace.
> 
> so there's a bit of scope to which we can add a set of "big idea" goals (aka
> "vision") so we can chart how to accomplish each of the things in the list
> above.
> 
> > Considering that applications like Dolphin or Gwenview are part of it as
> 
> dolphin and gwenview are applications. they are not part of the workspace.
> this is evident because:
> 
> * they fulfill specific tasks (file management, image viewing); in contrast
> plasma-desktop, kwin, krunner and system integration components such as
> bluedevil do not meet specific tasks but enable one to engage in those
> tasks. you can use kwin without a file manager; it's annoying to use
> dolphin without a file manager. it's the app/system split.
> 
> * they can be used in other desktop / workspace implementations without
> feeling foreign or that they are duplicating an integral system service
> 
> * the workspace can be used without them without any degredation of service
> 
> > well as Solid (hardware integration) I find many parts of that vision
> > vaguely applicable or at least not clearly applicable.
> 
> that's because they are not part of the workspace.
> 
> that begs the question: should we have an application vision? hell yes! (we
> have one for Active, btw...) should it harmonize with the workspace vision?
> double hell yes! there will be commonalities, there will also be
> differences. big ones.
> 
> applications are all about framing and delivering content. the workspace
> needs to "get out of the way" of that as much as possible and provide an
> integrative system for those applications to tap into.
> 
> the vision for an image viewer is neatly confined by the defined task.
> 
> the vison for a workspace is not, so those boundaries and parameters need to
> be derived from a much large possible solution space. on the other hand, it
> can also embody more dynamics as a result of not having a single,
> self-evident task as an image viewer or file manager does.

I see and I agree on all you said (again be patience with me :p).

We need then something like active where we can put all visions (workspace, 
applications, hardware support...) and create a more unified experience.