Hi !
Feedback from devs ... they are ok to work for FProxy using jetty/Wickets.
We are ready to help devs from a git rep. We just need a first stub.
GWT would be another project especially for download management (but this
is not the top priority)
So ok for Wickets+jetty.
Templating would be the
Hi !
Feedback from devs ... they are ok to work for FProxy using jetty/Wickets.
We are ready to help devs from a git rep. We just need a first stub.
GWT would be another project especially for download management (but this
is not the top priority)
So ok for Wickets+jetty.
Templating would be the
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Nicolas Hernandez <
nicolas.hernandez at aleph-networks.com> wrote:
> i don't know ... if we can forget Velocity i am happy :-). I don't know if
> for Freenet devs, Velocity is still a Pre-requisies.
>
I don't think Velocity was ever a prerequisite. The only prer
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Nicolas Hernandez <
nicolas.hernan...@aleph-networks.com> wrote:
> i don't know ... if we can forget Velocity i am happy :-). I don't know if
> for Freenet devs, Velocity is still a Pre-requisies.
>
I don't think Velocity was ever a prerequisite. The only prerequ
i don't know ... if we can forget Velocity i am happy :-). I don't know if
for Freenet devs, Velocity is still a Pre-requisies.
we have started a POC about GWT components. The goal is to demonstrate the
use of GWT as component
- in a standard jsp/Servlet environment
- with wickets ?!
- with non-js
i don't know ... if we can forget Velocity i am happy :-). I don't know if
for Freenet devs, Velocity is still a Pre-requisies.
we have started a POC about GWT components. The goal is to demonstrate the
use of GWT as component
- in a standard jsp/Servlet environment
- with wickets ?!
- with non-js
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Pouyan Zachar wrote:
> Wicket + Velocity is a excellent solution
>
>
Doesn't Wicket include its own templating engine, which is just an
extension of XHTML?
Ian.
--
Ian Clarke
Founder, The Freenet Project
Email: ian at freenetproject.org
-- next par
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Pouyan Zachar wrote:
> Wicket + Velocity is a excellent solution
>
>
Doesn't Wicket include its own templating engine, which is just an
extension of XHTML?
Ian.
--
Ian Clarke
Founder, The Freenet Project
Email: i...@freenetproject.org
_
Am Donnerstag, 12. April 2012, 14:48:08 schrieb Nicolas Hernandez:
> Yes i know. But we are working about accessibility for
> developpers too !
>
>
>- Velocity for templating
>- html+jsp for site rendering
>- gwt+nonjs for components and components rendering
How does havin
Am Donnerstag, 12. April 2012, 14:48:08 schrieb Nicolas Hernandez:
> Yes i know. But we are working about accessibility for
> developpers too !
>
>
>- Velocity for templating
>- html+jsp for site rendering
>- gwt+nonjs for components and components rendering
How does havin
- Nicolas Hernandez
> *
>> Concerning GWT*:
>> *If all devs and the leader of http://goo.gl/QhPVD are ok to use GWT *we
>> can consider rewriting FProxy using GWT components.
>> We can use GWT as a pool of components only.
>> -> Using Velocity for templating (if needed).
>> -> using jsp like pages
Hi!
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Nicolas Hernandez <
nicolas.hernandez at aleph-networks.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> *First of all*;
>
>- http://goo.gl/kOEAU
>- http://goo.gl/QhPVD
>
> Are ok for me, the only reason i prefer going to gwt is the team. It is
> easier to find dev using GWT th
- Nicolas Hernandez
> *
>> Concerning GWT*:
>> *If all devs and the leader of http://goo.gl/QhPVD are ok to use GWT *we
>> can consider rewriting FProxy using GWT components.
>> We can use GWT as a pool of components only.
>> -> Using Velocity for templating (if needed).
>> -> using jsp like pages
Hi!
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Nicolas Hernandez <
nicolas.hernan...@aleph-networks.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> *First of all*;
>
>- http://goo.gl/kOEAU
>- http://goo.gl/QhPVD
>
> Are ok for me, the only reason i prefer going to gwt is the team. It is
> easier to find dev using GWT than
On Tuesday 13 Mar 2012 02:54:47 Steve Dougherty wrote:
> I very much like this idea! Presenting a single page with choices,
> especially when the final button is "Finish and connect now" is a
> superb way to speed up the first run setup. The current use of
> multiple pages without even a progress b
On Tuesday 13 Mar 2012 02:54:47 Steve Dougherty wrote:
> I very much like this idea! Presenting a single page with choices,
> especially when the final button is "Finish and connect now" is a
> superb way to speed up the first run setup. The current use of
> multiple pages without even a progress b
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Last time I asked, just about everyone actively using FMS who commented on
> the matter was of the view that for Freenet to *require* javascript would
> be utterly unacceptable.
>
Yes, when you ask people "how would you feel about being
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Last time I asked, just about everyone actively using FMS who commented on
> the matter was of the view that for Freenet to *require* javascript would
> be utterly unacceptable.
>
Yes, when you ask people "how would you feel about being
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I very much like this idea! Presenting a single page with choices,
especially when the final button is "Finish and connect now" is a
superb way to speed up the first run setup. The current use of
multiple pages without even a progress bar puts more pre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I very much like this idea! Presenting a single page with choices,
especially when the final button is "Finish and connect now" is a
superb way to speed up the first run setup. The current use of
multiple pages without even a progress bar puts more pre
Am Freitag, 9. M?rz 2012, 21:52:22 schrieb Steve Dougherty:
> Should we get rid of more of the steps in the first-run setup?
I think yes - if people choose the default installation, they should not be
forced to take additional decisions.
Maybe it would even be possible to just show a pane ?Basi
Am Freitag, 9. März 2012, 21:52:22 schrieb Steve Dougherty:
> Should we get rid of more of the steps in the first-run setup?
I think yes - if people choose the default installation, they should not be
forced to take additional decisions.
Maybe it would even be possible to just show a pane “Basic
Am Freitag, 9. M?rz 2012, 23:59:30 schrieb Arne Babenhauserheide:
> Am Mittwoch, 7. M?rz 2012, 15:29:45 schrieb Ian Clarke:
> > > So what is the experience of new users? Install freenet, see automaticly
> > > shipped wot+freetalk, try them, see their issues, maybe browse some
> > > sites and uninst
On Saturday 10 Mar 2012 02:54:15 Steve Dougherty wrote:
> Should we get rid of more of the steps in the first-run setup? Asking
> about datastore size is a must, but perhaps we can get away with
> something like what I2P does where it assumes a very low bandwidth limit
> and encourages users to rai
Am Freitag, 9. März 2012, 23:59:30 schrieb Arne Babenhauserheide:
> Am Mittwoch, 7. März 2012, 15:29:45 schrieb Ian Clarke:
> > > So what is the experience of new users? Install freenet, see automaticly
> > > shipped wot+freetalk, try them, see their issues, maybe browse some
> > > sites and uninst
On Saturday 10 Mar 2012 02:54:15 Steve Dougherty wrote:
> Should we get rid of more of the steps in the first-run setup? Asking
> about datastore size is a must, but perhaps we can get away with
> something like what I2P does where it assumes a very low bandwidth limit
> and encourages users to rai
Am Freitag, 9. M?rz 2012, 23:14:04 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> On Friday 09 Mar 2012 23:02:49 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 7. M?rz 2012, 22:14:39 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
> > > So what is the experience of new users? Install freenet, see automaticly
> > > shipped wot+freetalk, try th
Am Mittwoch, 7. M?rz 2012, 22:14:39 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
> So what is the experience of new users? Install freenet, see automaticly
> shipped wot+freetalk, try them, see their issues, maybe browse some
> sites and uninstall freenet again, since things either do rarely work or
> there is no conten
Am Mittwoch, 7. M?rz 2012, 15:29:45 schrieb Ian Clarke:
> > So what is the experience of new users? Install freenet, see automaticly
> > shipped wot+freetalk, try them, see their issues, maybe browse some
> > sites and uninstall freenet again, since things either do rarely work or
> > there is no c
On Friday 09 Mar 2012 23:02:49 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 7. M?rz 2012, 22:14:39 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
> > So what is the experience of new users? Install freenet, see automaticly
> > shipped wot+freetalk, try them, see their issues, maybe browse some
> > sites and uninstall freen
Am Mittwoch, 7. M?rz 2012, 13:40:56 schrieb Ian Clarke:
> Yes, the vast number of people that refuse to use anything but Lynx? There
> is RMS, who are the other ones? So far as I know RMS doesn't use Freenet
> so we don't have to worry about him.
I regularly browse freenet with a raw text interf
Should we get rid of more of the steps in the first-run setup? Asking
about datastore size is a must, but perhaps we can get away with
something like what I2P does where it assumes a very low bandwidth limit
and encourages users to raise it afterwards. This could work well
alongside requiring a 5Ki
Should we get rid of more of the steps in the first-run setup? Asking
about datastore size is a must, but perhaps we can get away with
something like what I2P does where it assumes a very low bandwidth limit
and encourages users to raise it afterwards. This could work well
alongside requiring a 5Ki
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 16:23:49 Nicolas Hernandez wrote:
> Hello Ian,
>
> We are still looking for the best choice between running in jetty
> a. Accessibility for devs (nice eclipse plugin for example)
Important but not absolutely vital. E.g. a fair bit happens with the current UI
in spite of
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 21:19:38 Nicolas Hernandez wrote:
> rendering:
> it is important to differentiate the Redenderer and the Controller.
> GWT can be used:
> - as a Controler
> - as Renderer
Please explain briefly controller vs renderer? Is this Model/View/Controller
you are talking about,
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 19:40:56 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 17:18:54 Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > Unless those freenet devs are willing to build the GUI themselves, I
> > > recommend that you do not allow them to prevent
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 20:09:51 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
> > One reason to not use pre-compiled stuff is, that you can patch or
> > adjust the code before you compile it. In addition, only those patches
> > have a chance to go upstream, probably
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 21:29:45 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
> > Ian Clarke schrieb:
> > Do you really think, that having some nice javascript or otherwise
> > adjusted interface would magically raise the numbers of users?
>
> I think having a nice
Am Freitag, 9. März 2012, 23:14:04 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> On Friday 09 Mar 2012 23:02:49 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 7. März 2012, 22:14:39 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
> > > So what is the experience of new users? Install freenet, see automaticly
> > > shipped wot+freetalk, try th
On Friday 09 Mar 2012 23:02:49 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 7. März 2012, 22:14:39 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
> > So what is the experience of new users? Install freenet, see automaticly
> > shipped wot+freetalk, try them, see their issues, maybe browse some
> > sites and uninstall freen
Am Mittwoch, 7. März 2012, 22:14:39 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
> So what is the experience of new users? Install freenet, see automaticly
> shipped wot+freetalk, try them, see their issues, maybe browse some
> sites and uninstall freenet again, since things either do rarely work or
> there is no conten
Am Mittwoch, 7. März 2012, 15:29:45 schrieb Ian Clarke:
> > So what is the experience of new users? Install freenet, see automaticly
> > shipped wot+freetalk, try them, see their issues, maybe browse some
> > sites and uninstall freenet again, since things either do rarely work or
> > there is no c
Am Mittwoch, 7. März 2012, 13:40:56 schrieb Ian Clarke:
> Yes, the vast number of people that refuse to use anything but Lynx? There
> is RMS, who are the other ones? So far as I know RMS doesn't use Freenet
> so we don't have to worry about him.
I regularly browse freenet with a raw text interf
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 16:23:49 Nicolas Hernandez wrote:
> Hello Ian,
>
> We are still looking for the best choice between running in jetty
> a. Accessibility for devs (nice eclipse plugin for example)
Important but not absolutely vital. E.g. a fair bit happens with the current UI
in spite of
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 21:19:38 Nicolas Hernandez wrote:
> rendering:
> it is important to differentiate the Redenderer and the Controller.
> GWT can be used:
> - as a Controler
> - as Renderer
Please explain briefly controller vs renderer? Is this Model/View/Controller
you are talking about,
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 19:40:56 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 17:18:54 Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > Unless those freenet devs are willing to build the GUI themselves, I
> > > recommend that you do not allow them to prevent
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 20:09:51 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
> > One reason to not use pre-compiled stuff is, that you can patch or
> > adjust the code before you compile it. In addition, only those patches
> > have a chance to go upstream, probably
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 21:29:45 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
> > Ian Clarke schrieb:
> > Do you really think, that having some nice javascript or otherwise
> > adjusted interface would magically raise the numbers of users?
>
> I think having a nice
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 05:23:49PM +0100, Nicolas Hernandez wrote:
> Hello Ian,
>
> We are still looking for the best choice between running in jetty
> a. Accessibility for devs (nice eclipse plugin for example)
> b. Accessibility for user
> c. Light weight
> d. Performance
>
> In our side the pr
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 05:23:49PM +0100, Nicolas Hernandez wrote:
> Hello Ian,
>
> We are still looking for the best choice between running in jetty
> a. Accessibility for devs (nice eclipse plugin for example)
> b. Accessibility for user
> c. Light weight
> d. Performance
>
> In our side the pr
rendering:
it is important to differentiate the Redenderer and the Controller.
GWT can be used:
- as a Controler
- as Renderer
as Renderer gwt can offer a
- MinimalHtmlRenderer Interface for admin and simple actions
- Web2Renderer
- AndroidRender ?
In this case the interface templates could be
Ian Clarke schrieb:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
>> One reason to not use pre-compiled stuff is, that you can patch or
>> adjust the code before you compile it. In addition, only those patches
>> have a chance to go upstream, probably noone will accept a patch against
Ian Clarke schrieb:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
>> I dont contribute code as a freenet dev, but i do package it for Gentoo
>> linux and from that perspective, i have to strongly vote against gwt.
>> That thing is a big beast with many included external libs, often ev
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 17:18:54 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Nicolas Hernandez <
> nicolas.hernandez at aleph-networks.com> wrote:
>
> > In our side the priority are like that a>b>d>c (+eclipse plugin)
> > Four some freenet devs it loks like c>d>a>b (+velocity for templat
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 19:17:42 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
> > I dont contribute code as a freenet dev, but i do package it for Gentoo
> > linux and from that perspective, i have to strongly vote against gwt.
> > That thing is a big beast with ma
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 17:55:57 Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Nicolas Hernandez schrieb:
> > Hello Ian,
> >
> > We are still looking for the best choice between running in jetty
> > a. Accessibility for devs (nice eclipse plugin for example)
> > b. Accessibility for user
> > c. Light weight
> > d. Perf
Nicolas Hernandez schrieb:
> Hello Ian,
>
> We are still looking for the best choice between running in jetty
> a. Accessibility for devs (nice eclipse plugin for example)
> b. Accessibility for user
> c. Light weight
> d. Performance
>
> In our side the priority are like that a>b>d>c (+eclipse p
Thanks a lot Ian,
We try to federate the maximum of devs ... but the dev start (the core
project) in 2 months. Just the time to take the decision and write the
firsts docs. And we don't have time to wait a lot about that ... so this
project starts anyway :-) ... and hope for a finished soon proje
Just want to add JRuby to the list. Rails has lots of fans and third-party
tools and it's under active development and supposedly on java 1.7 it runs
faster than the C implementation.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Nicolas Hernandez <
nicolas.hernandez at aleph-networks.com> wrote:
> Hello Ian
Hello Ian,
We are still looking for the best choice between running in jetty
a. Accessibility for devs (nice eclipse plugin for example)
b. Accessibility for user
c. Light weight
d. Performance
In our side the priority are like that a>b>d>c (+eclipse plugin)
Four some freenet devs it loks like c>
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Ian Clarke schrieb:
> Do you really think, that having some nice javascript or otherwise
> adjusted interface would magically raise the numbers of users?
>
I think having a nice, well defined user interface will raise the number of
users, ye
Just want to add JRuby to the list. Rails has lots of fans and third-party
tools and it's under active development and supposedly on java 1.7 it runs
faster than the C implementation.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Nicolas Hernandez <
nicolas.hernan...@aleph-networks.com> wrote:
> Hello Ian,
>
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> One reason to not use pre-compiled stuff is, that you can patch or
> adjust the code before you compile it. In addition, only those patches
> have a chance to go upstream, probably noone will accept a patch against
> the generated javascript
User experience and user interfaces go hand and hand. I believe Thomas is
addressing issues he sees with the user experience of Freenet.
If you're updating the interface to improve the user experience, it's a
worthwhile investment. However, mainly putting effort into updating the visuals
of an
User experience and user interfaces go hand and hand. I believe Thomas is
addressing issues he sees with the user experience of Freenet.
If you're updating the interface to improve the user experience, it's a
worthwhile investment. However, mainly putting effort into updating the visuals
of an
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 17:18:54 Ian Clarke wrote:
> > Unless those freenet devs are willing to build the GUI themselves, I
> > recommend that you do not allow them to prevent you from proceeding.
> > Someone willing to make things happen
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Ian Clarke schrieb:
> Do you really think, that having some nice javascript or otherwise
> adjusted interface would magically raise the numbers of users?
>
I think having a nice, well defined user interface will raise the number of
users, ye
rendering:
it is important to differentiate the Redenderer and the Controller.
GWT can be used:
- as a Controler
- as Renderer
as Renderer gwt can offer a
- MinimalHtmlRenderer Interface for admin and simple actions
- Web2Renderer
- AndroidRender ?
In this case the interface templates could be
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> I dont contribute code as a freenet dev, but i do package it for Gentoo
> linux and from that perspective, i have to strongly vote against gwt.
> That thing is a big beast with many included external libs, often even
> modified ones and a co
Ian Clarke schrieb:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
>> One reason to not use pre-compiled stuff is, that you can patch or
>> adjust the code before you compile it. In addition, only those patches
>> have a chance to go upstream, probably noone will accept a patch against
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> One reason to not use pre-compiled stuff is, that you can patch or
> adjust the code before you compile it. In addition, only those patches
> have a chance to go upstream, probably noone will accept a patch against
> the generated javascript
Ian Clarke schrieb:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
>> I dont contribute code as a freenet dev, but i do package it for Gentoo
>> linux and from that perspective, i have to strongly vote against gwt.
>> That thing is a big beast with many included external libs, often ev
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 17:18:54 Ian Clarke wrote:
> > Unless those freenet devs are willing to build the GUI themselves, I
> > recommend that you do not allow them to prevent you from proceeding.
> > Someone willing to make things happen
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 17:18:54 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Nicolas Hernandez <
> nicolas.hernan...@aleph-networks.com> wrote:
>
> > In our side the priority are like that a>b>d>c (+eclipse plugin)
> > Four some freenet devs it loks like c>d>a>b (+velocity for templating
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 19:17:42 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
> > I dont contribute code as a freenet dev, but i do package it for Gentoo
> > linux and from that perspective, i have to strongly vote against gwt.
> > That thing is a big beast with ma
On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 17:55:57 Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Nicolas Hernandez schrieb:
> > Hello Ian,
> >
> > We are still looking for the best choice between running in jetty
> > a. Accessibility for devs (nice eclipse plugin for example)
> > b. Accessibility for user
> > c. Light weight
> > d. Perf
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Nicolas Hernandez <
nicolas.hernandez at aleph-networks.com> wrote:
> In our side the priority are like that a>b>d>c (+eclipse plugin)
> Four some freenet devs it loks like c>d>a>b (+velocity for templating)
>
Unless those freenet devs are willing to build the GUI
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> I dont contribute code as a freenet dev, but i do package it for Gentoo
> linux and from that perspective, i have to strongly vote against gwt.
> That thing is a big beast with many included external libs, often even
> modified ones and a co
Nicolas Hernandez schrieb:
> Hello Ian,
>
> We are still looking for the best choice between running in jetty
> a. Accessibility for devs (nice eclipse plugin for example)
> b. Accessibility for user
> c. Light weight
> d. Performance
>
> In our side the priority are like that a>b>d>c (+eclipse p
Thanks a lot Ian,
We try to federate the maximum of devs ... but the dev start (the core
project) in 2 months. Just the time to take the decision and write the
firsts docs. And we don't have time to wait a lot about that ... so this
project starts anyway :-) ... and hope for a finished soon proje
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Nicolas Hernandez <
nicolas.hernan...@aleph-networks.com> wrote:
> In our side the priority are like that a>b>d>c (+eclipse plugin)
> Four some freenet devs it loks like c>d>a>b (+velocity for templating)
>
Unless those freenet devs are willing to build the GUI th
Hi Nicolas,
Did you ever make any progress on this?
Ian.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Nicolas Hernandez <
nicolas.hernandez at aleph-networks.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a sort of personnal introduction:
>
> We want to work on freenet accessibility. The first step could be the
> webui
Hello Ian,
We are still looking for the best choice between running in jetty
a. Accessibility for devs (nice eclipse plugin for example)
b. Accessibility for user
c. Light weight
d. Performance
In our side the priority are like that a>b>d>c (+eclipse plugin)
Four some freenet devs it loks like c>
Hi Nicolas,
Did you ever make any progress on this?
Ian.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Nicolas Hernandez <
nicolas.hernan...@aleph-networks.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a sort of personnal introduction:
>
> We want to work on freenet accessibility. The first step could be the
> webui. I
On Wednesday 22 Feb 2012 14:58:43 Ian Clarke wrote:
> Hi, that would be great!
>
> We did consider GWT a few years back, but the concern was the lack of
> graceful degradation if the browser didn't support JavaScript. I'm not
> sure how relevant that concern is in this day and age where browser s
On Wednesday 22 Feb 2012 14:58:43 Ian Clarke wrote:
> Hi, that would be great!
>
> We did consider GWT a few years back, but the concern was the lack of
> graceful degradation if the browser didn't support JavaScript. I'm not
> sure how relevant that concern is in this day and age where browser s
Hi, that would be great!
We did consider GWT a few years back, but the concern was the lack of
graceful degradation if the browser didn't support JavaScript. I'm not
sure how relevant that concern is in this day and age where browser support
for JavaScript is assumed on many websites.
Ultimately
Hi, that would be great!
We did consider GWT a few years back, but the concern was the lack of
graceful degradation if the browser didn't support JavaScript. I'm not
sure how relevant that concern is in this day and age where browser support
for JavaScript is assumed on many websites.
Ultimately
Hey,
we had a discussion on how to re-implement the webui in context of GSoC
2011. The final consensus was to use a templating engine such as Apache
velocity and externalize the whole HTML generation as template file. Main
focus was on a light-weight and fast approach.
Cheers
Pouyan
On Tue, Feb
Hello,
This is a sort of personnal introduction:
We want to work on freenet accessibility. The first step could be the
webui. In the case of a total rework of the webui. Wich framework could be
the 'good' one in the freenet philosophy ? Wich software architecture ?
Is GWT and his model a good id
Hey,
we had a discussion on how to re-implement the webui in context of GSoC
2011. The final consensus was to use a templating engine such as Apache
velocity and externalize the whole HTML generation as template file. Main
focus was on a light-weight and fast approach.
Cheers
Pouyan
On Tue, Feb
Hello,
This is a sort of personnal introduction:
We want to work on freenet accessibility. The first step could be the
webui. In the case of a total rework of the webui. Wich framework could be
the 'good' one in the freenet philosophy ? Wich software architecture ?
Is GWT and his model a good id
92 matches
Mail list logo
