> As I played around with it, I found the HTTP approach more feasible > and less ugly than the mimetype handler approach. At first I figured > the idea of running a local HTTP server would be a bit ugly, and Owen > thought of some security concerns, but there's nothing too critical > (or unsolvable) that I know of. The only "ugly" thing from a code > perspective is that there's a magic port number: 16269. It's not on > the IANA Registered Ports list, so I doubt there's going to be a > collision. > So the local HTTP server is really just the implementation detail to > achieve the installing, enabling and disabling goals.
Sure. I don't really substantively disagree with anything you have said. When I said 'completely inside or outside' the shell, I didnt mean to suggest that the mimetype handler was my preferred solution for the 'outside the shell' approach. In that case I would implement a rich/separate extension browser application communicating with the extension website but doing things like dependency and version checking, installing, communicating with the shell, etc all on the client side. I would only choose the naked mimetype handler if the extension website/service was only going to offer extension installation (no upgrades, deps, rollback, etc). John _______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
