Re: Extensions Infrastructure Work
- From: ecyrbe <ecyrbe gmail com>
- To: "Jasper St. Pierre" <jstpierre mecheye net>
- Cc: Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl>, gnome-shell-list <gnome-shell-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Extensions Infrastructure Work
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:29:00 +0200
Hi jasper... are you really sure you want to have an http daemon just for updating an extension?
why can't you have :
- a cron task for polling update check
- get the shell write to a cookie write the currently installed extensions
because having a webserver just for this is a terrible idea... you can use already provided running system daemons to do the job,
i really don't think that you need another one. i think that a http server is overkill for this job.
can't we have a litle brainstorming on this list to come with a better solution?
2011/6/22 Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre mecheye net>
The problem isn't getting data from the browser to the Shell, it's
getting data from the Shell to the browser.
mime types, URL handlers, and thousands of other clever hacks don't
allow two-way communication. I want to have a button that says
"Enable" or "Disable" based on the current state of the Shell. None of
those hacks let me do this.
Building a server (could be WebSockets) that the browser can talk to
is the only browser-agnostic solution AFAIK.
Other solutions include modifying the cookies/HTML5 storage of known
browsers or a native extensions.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl
> Random thoughts:
> 1. MIME type still seems nicer
> 2. Would it be possible to have a custom URL handler?
] [Thread Prev