THX! Where do I get it orwhere can I read about it: I saw it in your videocast the other day..
-- Sent from Ubuntu Raju Bitter wrote: > That's what I look about Ant build scripts: you define what get's > packaged into your app, and you have full control over it. The LZX dev > console is good for development mode, but not really good for > packaging and deployment of apps. > > > > - Raju > > > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:00 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] > > > > > >
