In this bug we'd like to implement ActivityService that essentially will be wrapper around "activity" system message hosted in the main context.

Comment on attachment 8611059 [details] [gaia] azasypkin:bug-xxx-activity-service > mozilla-b2g:master Moving f+ from Julien and Steve (see bug 1162028).

[p=3] for 2.2S14 includes: * Spec for the activity service; * Activity service implementation.

Comment on attachment 8611059 [details] [gaia] azasypkin:bug-xxx-activity-service > mozilla-b2g:master Hey Julien and Steve, Could you please review this simplified activity service/client PR? Regarding Steve's question about joining client part into ActivityHandler - I'm not opposed to this idea, but I think ActivityHandler.js is a beast that should be split into several files first (notification/sms-received/activity are essentially separate). And then we can better see if we can/need to join these things (bridge client wrapper and code app logic that reacts on activity parameters). Thanks!

I have some questions on github + some comments, please answer and we'll continue then :)

Thanks for comments! Replied at GitHub :)

Comment on attachment 8611059 [details] [gaia] azasypkin:bug-xxx-activity-service > mozilla-b2g:master Looks good to me and just one last bikeshedding question: Since we set name of the view to the controller(like inbox.js) to distinct the main controller in each view, should we do the some for service part like activity_client.js/activity_shim.js? I'm fine for any conclusion. BTW, thanks for implementing first workable service!

Comment on attachment 8611059 [details] [gaia] azasypkin:bug-xxx-activity-service > mozilla-b2g:master Let's land this. We'll change what we need to change when we'll need it, the future is too vague to decide everything now anyway :) I left some small nits. Don't forget to change the commit message to reflect that we're not doing a Service but a Shim :)

(In reply to Steve Chung [:steveck] from comment #7) > Comment on attachment 8611059 [details] > [gaia] azasypkin:bug-xxx-activity-service > mozilla-b2g:master > > Looks good to me and just one last bikeshedding question: Since we set name > of the view to the controller(like inbox.js) to distinct the main controller > in each view, should we do the some for service part like > activity_client.js/activity_shim.js? I'm fine for any conclusion. Yeah, you're right, it's better to be in line with how we name view controllers - will update, thanks!

Thanks for review guys! Let's try to land it :)

Master: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/commit/71bff086d3906d552d6a32fdf2b87e3b710fcc3d