Feel free to think of solutions. And what's wrong with a sleeping daemon?
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:59 AM, ecyrbe <ecyrbe gmail com
> 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
>> > 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.