ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Stefano Verzegnassi <stefano92.100@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Bill,

2016-04-11 15:28 GMT+02:00 Bill Filler <bill.filler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Are you accessing the videos from File Manager and trying to open from
> there? If so, that is the problem (actualy a bug in File Manager). When
> clicking on the video from file manager it should request to open in
> media-player not import via the content-hub.

I understand the logic behind what you're saying, but that doesn't convince me.
It sounds to me like an admission that there's something wrong with
the content sharing concept in the Ubuntu platform, and that there's
even no standard in a short term for that.

Why should file-manager implement an exception for a single content type?

In the past, a similar request has been made by music-app developers:
if an user requires to open a file from ~/Music, file-manager should
use URL dispatcher instead of content-hub.

What prevents Document Viewer (talking for myself here) to make a
similar request, instead of being forced to rely on the file name and
the size of the imported file[1][2], and finalize the transfer without
copying the file if the app detects a similar file in ~/Documents? -
This is the workaround that it has been suggested and I've been forced
to implement for such scenario.

Being a not-preinstalled app, or a fully-confined one shouldn't be a
reason why an app should be forced to provide a bad user experience,
nor for being excluded from an app (file-manager) that it's the only
way for an user to access the whole file system.

I know there are security concerns about exposing the content of the
device to third party apps. However, at least, there's no reason why
content-hub should create a new copy of a file for an app that it has
been already whitelisted (in the AppArmor profile) and authorized to
the access that specific path.

This topic has been systematically raised every N months, by someone
complaining her/his unsatisfying experience with content-hub.
No answer has been given, so I'd like to know if there's some plan or
on-going work for those bugs that have been reported years ago, since
no progress has been made.

e.g.
  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/content-hub/+bug/1324985
  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/content-hub/+bug/1370687
  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/content-hub/+bug/1425955


Cheers,

Stefano


[1] http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-docviewer-dev/ubuntu-docviewer-app/lo-viewer/view/head:/src/plugin/file-qml-plugin/docviewerutils.cpp#L138
[2] http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-docviewer-dev/ubuntu-docviewer-app/lo-viewer/view/head:/src/app/qml/common/ContentHubProxy.qml