That is a good suggestion, to have a screen which confirms the contents of the file before generating it for the user. That could also highlight the "active" files which are used and put a note next to them as to why they are there. I'll file an improvement request.
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Founder <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not even OL needs to be perfect in order to attract (more) users! Your > Official examples prove > that OL is very cool, yet at times the newbie all but needs to feel > understood he can have a problem. > (See ubuntu community) > > The biggest point on my "wishlist" is that you at first added also on the > SOLO deploy screen a note > what files are really meant to be in the SOLO deployment apart from the > APP's own resources like > pix and xml files.. > > See, due to the location of resource subfolder and the like like you have > for one project several > .lzx files in the same folder. The may be for different versions like one > for the widget, the other for > the web and trail test versions before changing the master project .lzx > file.. > > LO compliles the entire folder and thus the archived SOLO delpoyment file > can easily rise fast to 100MB. > Especially, when and if one needs this master sprit file, which is ususally > very large. > > This all helps the user then to open his compressed SOLO archive and delete > those things you do not neet > for operation on the web or as a widget.. > > Later on OL can all but run thru the .lxz file and check resource elements > to add those to the achrive only! > > But for now folks would really like to see on the last screen before > actually downloading the .wgt file > a note: remember for solo web you need only the main.lzx.js, the folder lps > (when it changes..), the index.html > (you can also rename it into index.php for some servers), (and the > config.xml file!!) apart from your > resource element files.. Above all: If you have not clicked on use > mastersprite, you can delete the file also > from your archive. (Is this true?!) > > This reduces size on server and if you want to send off the widget, it is > smaller.. > > Best, > Duke2010 > > PS: I know it is odd, but very practical ;) > > -- > Sent from Ubuntu > > > > Henry Minsky wrote: > > Thanks for the suggestion. > > I've been incrementally adding support for widget files to the deployer > scripts, as I find out more > about the config file formats. It's been hard to find definitive > documentation, as each browser > or system seems to support a different set of configuration parameters or > options, and often the > browser will just silently fail if something is misconfigured. > > Another issue I cam across, which there's an outstanding patch for, is that > if you specify > canvas size as a percentage, that silently fails in most mobile widget > config files. I need to at least > add a warning about that as well. > > Please keep posting about any issues you come across with the deployment > scripts. When we > get time and info we'll try update them to have more specific rules for > each platform. > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Founder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In the OL sourcecode I would add for now a note on the screen when the > widget archive has been packed to consider W3C policy in regard to widget & > internet access in the config.xml file.. As your posting had pointed me o > the correct issue I could even figure it out myself. But when at first you > get no hint, no warning, no notice nor error message ppl are left in the > dark :) > > Duke2010 > > > > > > -- > Sent from Ubuntu > > > > > Raju Bitter wrote: > > Good question, it's because the widget generation feature was just added a > few months ago to the platform. Normally you'd have a wizard to set the > different options automatically, depending on the widget standard you are > targeting. > > > I can imagine that the OpenLaszlo team - or someone from the community - > will start working on such a feature within the next months. But you are > invited to do that, if you are interested. :-) > > > Best, > Raju > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Founder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thank you! Just for your post > http://www.kamijs.com/blog/archive/2010/07/creating-an-opera-widget-out-of-an-openlaszlo-application#comment-165 > I will study is now.. I mean if you have an OL APP and then use the OP > widget emulator, why does it not set these settings by itself or prompt me?! > > I get back to the list after I have read fully your above post.. > > > > > -- > Sent from Ubuntu > > > > > > Raju Bitter wrote: > > The Opera widget runtime for Desktop implements security features which are > in place for mobile devices, but are needed for desktop as well: > http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/the-opera-widgets-runtime-for-desktop/ > http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/presto24/widgets/#sec > > > You probably don't want a widget to send files from your file system to > remote servers, or to modify files on your filesystem without permissions. > That means, there is a security sandbox integrated into the runtime. > > > Opera supports the default Widgets security model. The following points > are a summary of the Opera default security model for Widgets. > 1. Opera silently denies direct access to resources residing on a user's > file system. > 2. Opera allows a Widget to access content over the Widget protocol. > 3. Opera denies access to the end-user's file system over the file: URI > scheme. > 4. In the presence of a protocol element, Opera grants a Widget access to > protocols that it supports through the appropriate URI scheme (e.g., ftp, > etc.). In the absence of protocol elements, Opera allows a Widget to access > content over the http and https protocols. > 5. Opera allows communication over default ports, or only to the ports the > author has pre-declared as ports using the port element. Opera, > however, denies Widgets from using ports equal to or below 1023 that are not > default ports, even if access is requested by the author via the port > element. > > > > - Raju > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Founder <[email protected]> wrote: > > THX 4 your help! I will look at the links later. > > Best, > Duke2010 > > PS: when I want to deploy dthml as a Desktop widget I see no link to mobile > devices ;) > > > -- > Sent from Ubuntu > > > > > > > > Raju Bitter wrote: > > Check the list of standards and other links on this page. > http://wiki.kamijs.com/mobile_and_w3c_widgets > > > > Allowing access to the internet depends on the widget standard you choose. > Check the W3C standard proposal as an example: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-access-20091208/ > > > Or the Opera standard (although Opera widgets will be discontinued): > http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/opera-widgets-specification-fourth-ed/#xml_security_access > > > Again, this is something which should be discussed on the mobile OpenLaszlo > mailing list: http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile > > > - Raju > > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Founder <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I have an dhtml app running fine on the web as SOLO in any browser, Now for > ubuntu I want to deploy it as a widget: > > Opera or W3W? What is the difference? > > The main issue is, that my app reads xml from the server. The widget is set > to read from the internet, if you will. > Issue now is after installing the app as widget, that it does not get its > data from the internet as when it runs in > the browser. > > So, flash and dhtml have the rule set that all stuff must be in the same > folder. How do you interpret this for an > widget on your desktop.. Must lazlo tomcat run in the background or what? > How do I make the app as widget > obtain its data via TCP?! > > Best, > Duke2010 > > PS: OL is cool, but "tricky.." > > > -- > Sent from Ubuntu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Henry Minsky > Software Architect > [email protected] > > > -- Henry Minsky Software Architect [email protected]
