2011/6/23 Jasper St. Pierre <jstpie...@mecheye.net> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:59 AM, ecyrbe <ecy...@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 <t...@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 >
_______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
