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.
2011/6/23 Jasper St. Pierre <jstpie...@mecheye.net> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:29 AM, ecyrbe <ecy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > > The HTTP daemon isn't for updating extensions, it's the DBus proxy for > installing, enabling and disabling extensions. I've detailed above why > it's necessary. > > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > Jasper >
_______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
