Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-08-09 📝 Original message:Oh, I forgot to make it ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-08-09
📝 Original message:Oh, I forgot to make it clear - Chrome apps/extensions can make raw TCP
socket connections:
http://blog.chromium.org/2012/11/introducing-tcp-listen-new-api-for.html
You would do it as a packaged app:
http://developer.chrome.com/apps/about_apps.html because then they're a
lot more similar to native apps (they get their own windows, run offline,
etc).
But these aren't standard APIs. They're all Chrome extensions. I doubt
HTML5 will support USB access anytime soon, for instance, but packaged apps
do.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> Code that runs inside NativeClient has the same access level as JavaScript
> does. It's just a way to do things faster.
>
> Distribution as a Chrome app via the Chrome store is a fine approach, as
> long as people understand it's just an app platform like any other. It has
> pros and cons that must be weighed up. For instance, Chrome for mobile
> doesn't really do apps, at least not at the moment. Also, you're still
> limited by what APIs Chrome exposes, which are a strict subset of what a
> real OS provides.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Wendell <w at grabhive.com> wrote:
>
>> Right, I'm not suggesting that we have this wallet in a web app, but
>> rather precisely what you are talking about: using special browser
>> features, and bundling it. I am fundamentally monoculture-opposed, but
>> given Chrome's present installed base, that initial target makes sense to
>> me, provided that we could have a one-click installation (as per normal,
>> via the Chrome Store).
>>
>> Chrome also has this "Native Client" plug-in: I know next to nothing
>> about it, and this goes off the rails of the Subject, but perhaps an SPV
>> implementation there could be a solution to the concerns you expressed?
>>
>> -wendell
>>
>> grabhive.com | twitter.com/grabhive | gpg: 6C0C9411
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>>
>> > JavaScript is turing complete so of course it can be done. The real
>> question you're asking is, can it be done in a web app? I think the answer
>> is I think "no" because web apps aren't allowed to make raw TCP socket
>> connections.
>> >
>> > Now there may be a way around that by using browser-specific things
>> like extensions or "installable apps" which give your code greater access
>> permissions. This approach means you essentially use Chrome as your app
>> platform instead of a JVM, the assumption presumably being that more users
>> have Chrome than a JVM. The flip side is that users who don't would
>> probably balk at the idea of installing an entire browser in order to run a
>> wallet app, whereas a JVM can be bundled and the resulting app acts like
>> any other. I don't know of a convenient way to "statically link" Chrome
>> into a regular-looking application.
>> >
>> > I personally wouldn't find such a design compelling. Whilst Java isn't
>> exactly a great language, JavaScript is significantly worse in virtually
>> all aspects. I don't understand why anyone would want to use JavaScript
>> outside the browser - you get less safety, less performance, fewer
>> features, less mature tools and so on. If the end result is an installable
>> app like any other, all you did is cripple yourself vs the competition
>> that's using languages/platforms designed for it.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130809/84ddd571/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:Oh, I forgot to make it clear - Chrome apps/extensions can make raw TCP
socket connections:
http://blog.chromium.org/2012/11/introducing-tcp-listen-new-api-for.html
You would do it as a packaged app:
http://developer.chrome.com/apps/about_apps.html because then they're a
lot more similar to native apps (they get their own windows, run offline,
etc).
But these aren't standard APIs. They're all Chrome extensions. I doubt
HTML5 will support USB access anytime soon, for instance, but packaged apps
do.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> Code that runs inside NativeClient has the same access level as JavaScript
> does. It's just a way to do things faster.
>
> Distribution as a Chrome app via the Chrome store is a fine approach, as
> long as people understand it's just an app platform like any other. It has
> pros and cons that must be weighed up. For instance, Chrome for mobile
> doesn't really do apps, at least not at the moment. Also, you're still
> limited by what APIs Chrome exposes, which are a strict subset of what a
> real OS provides.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Wendell <w at grabhive.com> wrote:
>
>> Right, I'm not suggesting that we have this wallet in a web app, but
>> rather precisely what you are talking about: using special browser
>> features, and bundling it. I am fundamentally monoculture-opposed, but
>> given Chrome's present installed base, that initial target makes sense to
>> me, provided that we could have a one-click installation (as per normal,
>> via the Chrome Store).
>>
>> Chrome also has this "Native Client" plug-in: I know next to nothing
>> about it, and this goes off the rails of the Subject, but perhaps an SPV
>> implementation there could be a solution to the concerns you expressed?
>>
>> -wendell
>>
>> grabhive.com | twitter.com/grabhive | gpg: 6C0C9411
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>>
>> > JavaScript is turing complete so of course it can be done. The real
>> question you're asking is, can it be done in a web app? I think the answer
>> is I think "no" because web apps aren't allowed to make raw TCP socket
>> connections.
>> >
>> > Now there may be a way around that by using browser-specific things
>> like extensions or "installable apps" which give your code greater access
>> permissions. This approach means you essentially use Chrome as your app
>> platform instead of a JVM, the assumption presumably being that more users
>> have Chrome than a JVM. The flip side is that users who don't would
>> probably balk at the idea of installing an entire browser in order to run a
>> wallet app, whereas a JVM can be bundled and the resulting app acts like
>> any other. I don't know of a convenient way to "statically link" Chrome
>> into a regular-looking application.
>> >
>> > I personally wouldn't find such a design compelling. Whilst Java isn't
>> exactly a great language, JavaScript is significantly worse in virtually
>> all aspects. I don't understand why anyone would want to use JavaScript
>> outside the browser - you get less safety, less performance, fewer
>> features, less mature tools and so on. If the end result is an installable
>> app like any other, all you did is cripple yourself vs the competition
>> that's using languages/platforms designed for it.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130809/84ddd571/attachment.html>;