On 07/08/2013 10:31 PM, Tim Chien wrote: > I want to echo Ben's opinion here. While some of the features are > irreplaceable at the time being (offline access, reviewable by > marketplace, sandboxing our experimental APIs, even portability, > etc.), packaged app itself is not free: > > -- By distributing the app in zip packages and not simply as an URL, > the OS would have to handle preloading/updating/deleting/etc.
So, what about using a manifest-based url scheme: mnf:http://myapp.com/manifest.webapp!/path/to/frame.html This would let address resources from both hosted and packaged apps in the same way, and let convert apps from hosted <-> packaged. > -- While these were all implemented (in a rush way for v1.0.1), many > of the proposals awaits, for example, shared resource packages, > library packages. I highly suspect that we won't ended up > re-implementing Debian package system in Gecko if we go down this > path. I'm not sure I understand you there. I don't think we want shared resources - that would lead to the terrible situation of firefox OS only apps. > -- By moving away from a universal URL (ironically that's what U > stands for), places where a valid URL is required will fail, e.g. > OAuth auth flow. app:// urls are urls... they are just not recognized by oauth providers. That may change, or not. > It would make sense if Mozilla have a solid roadmap toward a solution > for the Open Web itself instead of relying on packaged apps and spend > time to solve it's technical (and non-technical) problems. This is what people like Jonas, Mounir, Marcos and others are doing. That's hard and will take time. Fabrice -- Fabrice Desré b2g team Mozilla Corporation _______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
