Re: Extensions Infrastructure Work

[Jesse Hutton <jesse hutton gmail com>]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Jasper St. Pierre�<jstpierre mecheye net>�wrote:

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:59 AM, ecyrbe <ecyrbe gmail com> wrote:
> sorry i only replied to you, not the list and with a lot of misspelling, a
> corrected answer :
>
> 2011/6/23 Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre mecheye net>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:14 AM, ecyrbe <ecyrbe gmail com> wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> No. What if something else (gnome-tweak-tool, the shell's crash
>> handler, another shell extesnions etc.) disables extensions by editing
>> the gsettings key or calling the DBus methods themselves?
>>
>
> i think that you can check this buy other means. i didn't say that it's
> easy, but i think that it's better than than a daemon that will sleep 99,9%
> of the time for just this.

Feel free to think of solutions. And what's wrong with a sleeping daemon?

Forgive me if this has also been considered, but what about using offline storage support in HTML 5? In browsers, it looks like this is implemented with an SQLite database, which theoretically the Shell could talk to as well.

And does this really have to be cross browser�compatible?

Jesse