Re: Extensions Infrastructure Work

[ecyrbe <ecyrbe gmail com>]

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

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:59 AM, ecyrbe <ecyrbe gmail com> wrote:

> there are of course other possible designs... just let me enounce one :
>
> - the shell maintains a long polling connection directly with
> extensions.gnome.org and tells him directly under the user account what are
> the extensions enabled/installed/disabled/errors in the shell.
> - when the user connects under his account on extensions.gnome.org he sees
> what his the status of his installed extensions.
> - when the user click to install an extension, the web server respond to the
> web polled connection from the shell that the user asked for the
> installation of the extension
> - then in the long polled connection with the extensions.gnome.org the shell
> starts receiving the extension, check it, install it and notifies the
> website of the status of the installation
>
> but this design wasn't choosed. i don't see why as long polling is pretty
> common technique. may be there are flaws that i don't see.

Because it isn't necessary -- the only time I'll need to update the UI
is in response to a button click on the web UI, so I can just AJAX to
the server. Why bother implementing long polling if we don't need to
push data from the session to the browser at arbitrary moments?

this seems fair, and i don't think gnome could support a server with such a work load anyway. even if some optimized trick to long polling allows to have it under control.
but i just answered to say that other designs without a local webserver are possible.
 

I'd recommend you try to look carefully at what I did, how I
implemented it, and try to do your own thing.

i don't want to duplicate efforts japer, it's better to all go the same path.
Like i said, i'll try to make the same webserver you made in python inside gnome-shell, and see if it get accepted. is that ok?
 

> 2011/6/23 Tim Cuthbertson <tim gfxmonk net>
>>
>> >> As you do not have stuff like ActiveX, you need something to retrieve
>> >> the info. Having something with local storage means it has to already
>> >> be
>> >> known by the browser. So you'll have to change the local storage of all
>> >> possible browsers...
>> >
>> > There are very good reasons why this type of thing doesn't work across
>> > browsers. If we want to make it so users can install and manage
>> > extensions
>> > from browsers, it should be through browser extensions and not a local
>> > http
>> > server hack.
>> > Jesse
>>
>> A chrome extension would still need a local server (or something of
>> the sort), as chrome extensions can't actually launch processes or
>> otherwise interact with the host system. So then you'd need a chrome
>> extension *and* a web server (see
>> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ljobjlafonikaiipfkggjbhkghgicgoh
>> for an example extension that does exactly that).
>>
>> I still think there ought to be a better way than a local web server,
>> but I'm not seeing it...
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnome-shell-list mailing list
>> gnome-shell-list gnome org
>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-shell-list mailing list
> gnome-shell-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
>
>

--
 Jasper