Re: Extensions Infrastructure Work

[Elia Cogodi <elia cogodi gmail com>]

I'd have said that a local setting shouldn't be catered for by an
online-only GUI and that while online website seamless integration is
nice, you should also have an equivalent local tool for the operations
that make sense locally, such as enable/disable.

A native GUI speaking DBus sounds like the simplest thing, it can even
expose a link to the extension website if it's available and encourage
you to open it with your default browser. Thus it would also work as
an entry point for the users that want to look up new extensions.

In the absence of such a capplet, how were you planning to inform the
users of the availability and location of the extensions website?

PS: "forbidden" because the use of the shell tweak tool by the base
user has been not encouraged, if not actively discouraged. To which
point extensions have to be encouraged for different audiences of
users is up for discussion, I guess.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Jasper St. Pierre
<jstpierre mecheye net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Elia Cogodi <elia cogodi gmail com> wrote:
>> I understand the idea of the mini server for HTTP-DBus translation, so
>> you get integration into the extension web site/application.
>>
>> On the other hand, what happens if I can't go online or the extension
>> site is unreachable for any reason? Do I lose the GUI to
>> enable/disable my local extensions because that AJAX is only available
>> on that web page?
>
> Which would you prefer?
>
>  A) a native GUI (or Tweak Tool)
>  B) command line wrappers around DBus (gnome-shell-extensions --list,
> gnome-shell-extensions --disable)
>  C) a poor version of the online experience meant for offline use?
>
>> Or is a simple enable/disable "native", local GUI also in the works?
>> Unless you want to endorse the use of the forbidden tweak tool...
>
> Forbidden?
>
>> --
>>     Elia
>>
>
> --
>  Jasper
>



-- 
    Elia