[Plugin-2] Browser Plugins
Is there any point in the REBOl.org Script Library supporting the plugin any more? There are 15 scripts that are tagged as runable in the plugin. But none of them do in recent browers. http://www.rebol.org/st-topic-details.r?tag=platform//plugin
for historical purposes?
Is there a reason to remove them? Adding a note about compatibility would be good, but removing them means losing a bit of reference material. I don't know the last version of IE it works under, but I actually have some old things that use it. I still have IE6 here for running those. :-\
How ironic. REBOL keeping IE6 alive
The REBOL Plugin is less safe to run than IE6, so maybe not.
Well, it's keeping IE6 alive at least at Gregg's
To answer Sunanda's question: I would concur that there is no point in supporting the plug-in any more. It would be wise to archive the run-plugin scripts somewhere but I don't feel they need to be maintained. I assume that you didn't intend to remove the [plugin] scripts from the Library.
That's probably as clear as mud. By "run-plugin" scripts I mean the ones on Rebol.org that allow users to run [plugin] scripts directly in their browser from the Library.
Thanks for the comments. Even Microsoft is eagerly promoting the retirement of IE6: http://ie6countdown.com/ I think we can help that by disabling the plugin feature at REBOL.org :) Peter -- that would not mean deleting the scripts -- they work fine if downloaded, just like other scripts. It would mean, in part, disabling the special "run in plugin" link that appears when you view them
That's what I thought. I would disble the 'run in plugin' link if I were you.
Thanks. I've tweaked the code so the plugin links are only visible to logged-in members; similarly the plugin will only attempt to run if you are logged-in. So casual visitors will not see it. If there is ever a viable plugin for modern browsers, I'd be happy to reenable the public links.
Sounds good to me.
From @MaxV New Rebol plugin for R2: you can visit: http://www.maxvessi.net/rebsite/plugin/index.html to test if it works, tha pages contain some scripts. If you want, I can adder more...
Wow that is really cool. I downloaded and tested under Opera. Works very well. Just a few notes: bubbles takes too much cpu time, And gfx effect crushed (Opera hanged) when I tried all the effects then back to Invert (the first one)
Yes, bubbles take a little too time the first time it's launched, but it's very impressive,; so I put it first. If you want more scripts, just email me: [maxint-:-tiscali-:-it]
is that just rebranded RT's old plugin, or any new implementation?
it would be cool to have R3 based one, as the gfx engine is really enhanced
It would be cool to have an R3-based one for the security enhancements. R2 isn't secure enough for the browser.
Following wiki article claims, that there is only 15 functions needed to produce a plugin interface. I wonder - with R3 and extensions, wouldn't it be "rather easy" for a C skilled person, to create a R3 plugin for a plugin? :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPAPI
I asked Carl to free plugin source several times, sadly with zero response each time I tried. I think that plugin was not part of RT's revenue stream, so it is a pity it never happened, as someone could pick-up, do some fixes, improvements, etc.
There are a million things that are rather easy for a C skilled person, and that's the problem: there are fewer C programmers than tasks
New Plugin...works in Chrome very well
another challenge, which would render this plugin really useful, and exploitable on public sites, would be to get also the versions for linux and mac-os.
I just wonder, if R3 could be made a DLL too? We have R3 core library, and the hostkit sources. Then we have rather powerfull extension architecture, which could serve to link to plugin library. Having R3 available would be much more interesting imo, as it has new gfx core.
amacleod: where did you put the DLL, witch folder ?
c:\documents and settings\user name\local settings\application settings\google\chrome\application\version # in the root of version. This is for Chrome
Ah, need to put the files directly in the Application folder (I had created a Plugins folder first). Thanks Alan.
Should it be "application data" rather than "application settings"? I don't have the latter, so maybe an OS version difference.
Application data on XP.
I tried that, but no luck. Will try again soon to see if it was operator error.