Re: Extensions Infrastructure Work

[ecyrbe <ecyrbe gmail com>]

sorry, but i think that i miunderstood you or the contrary i don't konow (sorry english is not my native langage).
but i understood that you need an http daemon just to keep the state of installed extensions in the browser in sync with the shell.
doesn't a cokie based system should theoycally worj? if you could provide something based on cokies (even if it's less elegant solution)
i think that it's a better one than haviong an http daemon.
Am i wrong here? sorry if so.

2011/6/23 Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre mecheye net>

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:29 AM, ecyrbe <ecyrbe gmail com> wrote:
> 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
> - use a _javascript_ code for analysing the cookie information and showing
> accordingly the information on the browser

The HTTP daemon isn't for updating extensions, it's the DBus proxy for
installing, enabling and disabling extensions. I've detailed above why
it's necessary.

> 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> wrote:
>> > Random thoughts:
>> > 1. MIME type still seems nicer
>> > 2. Would it be possible to have a custom URL handler?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> > Olav
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  Jasper
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnome-shell-list mailing list
>> gnome-shell-list gnome org
>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
>
>

--
 Jasper