On Saturday 16 October 2010 13:57:07 Thomas Sachau wrote: > Am 16.10.2010 13:38, schrieb Matthew Toseland: > > On Friday 15 October 2010 22:54:31 Thomas Sachau wrote: > >> Am 15.10.2010 17:29, schrieb Matthew Toseland: > >>> We are considering making it impossible to use Freenet without a browser > >>> supporting Javascript. Yes or no answers would be useful (feel free to > >>> make further comments). I will post a similar poll to FMS. I suggest > >>> somebody does Frost, I personally don't use Frost. > >>> > >> > >> 1. The only reason for pushing a pure javascript based interface seems to > >> be the pushing to use GWT > >> for generating the interface. > >> GWT is not easily packaged (i already invested many hours and was not able > >> to do so the last time) > >> and a big package (especially for compile resources), so especially for > >> source based distros, but > >> also for possible maintainers for other distros, it raises the barrier and > >> time needed to install > >> and maintain freenet. > > > > It is possible to package GWT. Debian does so. > > And because they do have a package (you dont know, how they do it, if that is > completly from source > and if that way is portable, do you?), it does not mean, that there is one > for Gentoo. I would have > to create that and i know from my last try, that GWT is a mess in that regard. > On the other side, if you show me a simple way or script to completly compile > and install GWT from > source and without bundled libs or jars or provide me with such an ebuild, > that would remove my > biggest concern wrt GWT/javascript web interface. ;-) > I thought, that you would like to see freenet packaged. But if you really are > interested in distro > packages for freenet, you should also listen to the people, who do the > related work. And GWT would > add very much work for them.
The debian policy is pretty clear on that - it must be possible for it to be built from source for it to be released in main. And from what I've heard it is built from source. However it might well take weeks to create such a package for gentoo. :| > > > > >> Additionally i see no real reason or need to require explicitly and only > >> GWT except some hype around > >> it, there are also other ways to implement a nice web interface, including > >> html+css with some > >> optional additional javascript. > > > > We already use GWT! It's not mandatory, it's not on by default, but we use > > it in the build process. > > And in future it will be on by default because it eliminates the max > > connections issue. > > You say it: It is not mandatory, it is optional. So it is currently still > possible to build and > install freenet without GWT. That is the case now. Ian wants to change that by writing a new GWT-based UI using GWT Designer and widgets and so on, with no fallback. > Can you also tell me, what "max connections issue" you are talking about? Try loading the Activelink Index in Firefox. What happens? The browser fetches at most 6 images at a time. Given Freenet's high latency this is extremely inefficient, and it also prevents loading any other Freenet pages including status pages at the same time. Now turn on web-pushing and compare. We used to solve this issue using a browser profile but due to firefox bugs that would occasionally set the user's default profile to the Freenet profile, which was *REALLY* bad. > > >> 2. Javascript is both used for annoying ads and to exploit browser issues. > >> Those are 2 good reasons > >> to not have it enabled by default. I am sure, that i am not the only > >> person thinking that way. I > >> dont expect every interface or website to fully work without javascript, > >> but i expect some basic > >> functionality or i may just leave it again. > > > > I agree, many users will disable javascript on their main browser. Most of > > those users won't run a > > separate browser, they will simply click on the rabbit. Incognito/privacy > > mode does not re-enable > > javascript, so Freenet won't work. > >> > >> Because of both reason, my vote is: > >> -requirement: NO > >> -optional: yes > >> > >> Especially the first point (requirement of GWT) could drive me away, both > >> as a contributor (some > >> translations, bug reports and packages for Gentoo Linux) and followed by > >> that, because of missing > >> packages, as a user, since i dont expect packaging GWT to be much easier > >> these days. > > > > What will you do when we finally fix the bugs in the web-pushing code? That > > won't be required, > > but unless you plan to bundle a separate browser...? (Hint: profiles are > > not reliable and can > > cause severe problems e.g. changing the default profile to the freenet > > profile) > > If you require GWT for it, the same as the above applies to it: It should be > optional, not required, > it has the same issues as the UI completly in javascript. The web-pushing stuff will always be optional afaics. It's designed that way. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101016/a015a00f/attachment.pgp>
