On Monday 14 Feb 2011 08:08:28 Michiel de Jong wrote: > I thought about this some more, and I think it doesn't make sense to > distribute applications over freenet. Rather I think the JavaScript > application should be like a viewer application, and the unhosted storage > node could do freenet-node/server task of keeping data alive and anonymizing > requests. So basically, move your freenet node to your plugserver (which is > always-on), and access it through http rather than as a desktop application. > > But since you then already have a http interface on the freenet node, and > also you don't want to connect to other identifiable freenet-nodes from your > browser, without routing through somewhere else, you might as well use that > directly as the application you browse to, instead of using an unhosted web > app somewhere to access your freenet node, or even accessing your own one > and those of your friends. > > I may remember this incorrectly, but I think when I tried out freenet, it's > a desktop application, and not a localhost http service, right? Is there > also a mode to run the node as a server and use a standard browser as a > client to it? If you have that, then it would be easy to move the node to a > plugserver, where it is always-on, and in your home. Is that already > possible right now with freenet?
Freenet is a localhost HTTP service. We provide some native stuff for convenience' sake to open a browser in privacy mode. And yes we could serve javascript applications from Freenet's web interface. The catch is I don't see any way to sandbox them properly. It looks like we could provide (something like?) the Unhosted API and enable Javascript applications as well as our Java-level plugins, on the basis that the user trusts the coder?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
