(I hope you meant to CC devl, I'm going to anyway, this should be public/logged).
It's a good idea. It's not practical to implement it before 0.7.0, but after that it's well worth exploring. I don't suppose you're a javascript guru...? Whether it's an extension or just a block of javascript, either way a lot of it will be in javascript... I dunno if a plugin is appropriate, we can probably do what we want with js... On Friday 28 March 2008 15:01, David Sowder wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Friday 28 March 2008 13:13, you wrote: > > > >> Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday 28 March 2008 12:45, Obey Arthur Liu wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> I think what you found was about netscape-style plugins. It seems that > >>>> firefox-style extensions are a very different beasts : > >>>> <http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Extensions> > >>>> > >>> That's extensions, not plugins. Extensions are written in javascript. I > >>> > > don't > > > >>> know whether they are able to open TCP connections... > >>> > >>> > >> If not, then FCP over HTTP, which extensions can presumably do. > >> > > > > Right, some custom protocol. I agree it should be possible to do this with an > > extension. I'm not sure if that will adequately solve the > > browser-history-snooping problem though? I've been told an extension can > > remove stuff from the browser history ... Also won't the performance be poor, > > since we'd have to poll constantly? Or could we have a single connection > > which fetched a text file which included status updates, and handle them live > > as they come in? > > > The performance wouldn't be much different than normal FCP. It would be > a lot like AJAX from a performance perspective. A single connection > could probably be used. We could use once a second or so polling for > anything new on the FCP virtual session (the session would be based on a > UUID or something tying the polling HTTP request together as an FCP > session rather than a single TCP socket as we do elsewhere). The FCP > over HTTP stuff would probably be a relatively simple wrapper class > around FCP on the node's side. The "hard part" would be the FCP > implementation in Javascript since it doesn't already exist. That > implementation could be written generically and then the HTTP stuff > written as a "backend transport" such that the Javascript FCP library > could be reused elsewhere as well. > > This might be a good SoC project. I've mentioned it on the SoC ideas page. > > > > It would be really nice if each activelink on FAI showed a loading animation > > with a progress bar until it actually loads... > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080328/ce50d7ae/attachment.pgp>
