On Jul 30, 2011, at 8:06, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote: > Your letter fills me with internal conflict! [...] On the other hand: Java. > > I hate Java, and I hate the JVM. And even if I could hold my nose and > overcome my personal antipathy, the fact that caja requires Java to > run the cajoler imposes a huge difficulty in terms of packaging and > deployment for Tahoe-LAFS. I haven't thought through all the details > yet, but would it would mean the end of the "quickstart" procedure > [1]? [...]
The following is purely a hypothetical scenario; I make no promises about future work on the Caja project. How would you feel if it instead required a JavaScript runtime on the gateway, *or* the user to have recent browser with JavaScript enabled? We are working towards the goal of a pure client-side lightweight cajoler (in a particular mode of operation, on ES5-supporting browsers) which could be used for this purpose; it would require some amount of additional work to make it work server-side in a no-JS-in-the-browser. One could look at Node.js as an example of software which bundles a JavaScript runtime with it. (I haven't looked at how nice installing Node.js from source is.) Is there a JavaScript-to-Python compiler yet? :-) -- Kevin Reid <http://switchb.org/kpreid/> _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
