Hi jasper... are you really sure you want to have an http daemon just for updating an extension? why can't you have : - a cron task for polling update check - get the shell write to a cookie write the currently installed extensions - use a javascript code for analysing the cookie information and showing accordingly the information on the browser
because having a webserver just for this is a terrible idea... you can use already provided running system daemons to do the job, i really don't think that you need another one. i think that a http server is overkill for this job. can't we have a litle brainstorming on this list to come with a better solution? 2011/6/22 Jasper St. Pierre <jstpie...@mecheye.net> > The problem isn't getting data from the browser to the Shell, it's > getting data from the Shell to the browser. > > mime types, URL handlers, and thousands of other clever hacks don't > allow two-way communication. I want to have a button that says > "Enable" or "Disable" based on the current state of the Shell. None of > those hacks let me do this. > > Building a server (could be WebSockets) that the browser can talk to > is the only browser-agnostic solution AFAIK. > > Other solutions include modifying the cookies/HTML5 storage of known > browsers or a native extensions. > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Olav Vitters <o...@vitters.nl> wrote: > > Random thoughts: > > 1. MIME type still seems nicer > > 2. Would it be possible to have a custom URL handler? > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Olav > > > > > > -- > Jasper > _______________________________________________ > 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
