extending IE with Rebol was RE: Re: Easy-Vid
[1/7] from: bry::itnisk::com at: 6-Jan-2004 11:38
>It might just be a question of patents. Maybe MS has patented loading
of >scripts on web pages or something else obscenely vague. Well no actually Microsoft got sued by eolas: http://www.betanews.com/article.php3?sid=1065601616 The desire to have some sort of way of plugging rebol more closely into Windows, especially the protocol architecture as handled via IE, was the reason for the asynchronous pluggable protocol article: http://www.devx.com/webdev/Article/17120 The rebol example in there is pretty trivial (not to mention being spaghetti code), but I was hoping that others would have some ideas as to how such a protocol should actually work. If one of the things one wants is to just load .r files the protocol can be used to pass info as to the location of that .r file and then load it. Last night I actually started doing a useful script to run when I call reb:// 'addresses', I decided to have it have the structure Reb://password=skjuiquig&gobject=window&oid=1576&oname=IEXPLORE.EXE&load =myscript.r&exec=loadwindow http://www.rebol.com A password would be obligatory, this way the script can keep track of links authored locally, and those passed external to the system. Depending on what the password and security settings are it would allow one to do specific things. The gobject parameter refers to various objects recognized by the script that allows it to lock into the system. An object referencing window tells you that the script wants to do something to a specific window. Oid tells you the pid of the object passed (not necessary for each object) Oname tells you the image name of the object passed. Load tells you what scripts to load, probably should be a list. And exec tells you what code to execute. In the example link above I'm thinking that the link tells the script to get the window from which it was called, and to load that window with the address www.rebol.com to be able to do stuff like pass an actual windows id from IE, I'm extending the right click context menu, so unfortunately it can't be 100% rebol. Anyway, the scenario given above might not be the best way to do things, and it may not be what people want. So other suggestions would be welcome.
[2/7] from: gerardcote:sympatico:ca at: 6-Jan-2004 8:48
[3/7] from: bry:itnisk at: 6-Jan-2004 15:43
>But I think you are in a good idea to explore this avenue. May be
someone >more experienced can explain us SIMPLY what has to be done
>and if this can be done what we need to get as information to start
[4/7] from: bry:itnisk at: 6-Jan-2004 15:57
Okay it looks like Paul Tretter has done a lot of the ground work I needed for user32.dll http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/view-script.r?script=topwindo ws.r
[5/7] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 6-Jan-2004 16:11
Gerard Cote wrote:
That is not imo needed. AFAIK even RT is interested in browser plug-in resurrection. Of course I have not studied consequences of the plug-in problem MS was sued patent-wise for. As a start, I would welcome something like following: 1) View engine - encapped app 2) minimal desktop - current View desktop is way too much similar to typical OS desktop. As for browser-plugin kind of app - users are NOT looking for rebol and its related docs, but they visit certain sites and want to try to run certain x-inet-apps. I have seen Java Webstart - it is very similar of "GO" View desktop button section, just nicer and with some auto-update abilities 3) autoupdate - 3 levels - a) core engine (plug-in) update - only needed when new version of View is released b) desktop (navigation app, call it whatever) package update - kind of similar functionality as how IOS desktop is updated c) particular end user app update - default setting via context menu (or other way) to allow or disable auto-update, notification of user of new updates etc. with ability to download them manually 4) installation - it would be good if ti could be installed as other plug-ins ... users brought to certain download area, detection of browser platform, offer of certain app. User would select place of installation (placement) and if possible, settings like proxy would be set automatically 5) new apps. So - once some site posts .rpl (whatever .rpl = rebol player), user would click it, and if rebol player plug-in is already in-place, it would be started and added to player's list (desktop) 6) in some distant future RT does plug-in with ability to display inside of browser window, but I think it would not be needed imo for kind of apps as demos, game packages, but would be handy for VID based forms embedded in your html presentation ... That is my pov, I even dare to think it may be a killer app, if promoted a bit and if it would be deployed into user's web experience and would not be difficult to set-up ... Let's hope View 1.3 and 1.4 bring-in some more innovations to View low level, as current demos are just too jerky, animations slow (show me someone smooth and fast scrolling and I will send you bottle of beer ;-), keyboard navigation insufficient and making small games almost impossible to produce ... -pekr-
[6/7] from: rotenca:telvia:it at: 6-Jan-2004 16:34
> That is not imo needed. AFAIK even RT is interested in browser plug-in > resurrection.
RT should do the source code for plugin open source or better public domain, so people can improve/change/adapt it.
> Of course I have not studied consequences of the plug-in > problem MS was sued patent-wise for.
This is a fool thing for me, and, up today, i am not able to speak with logic about fool things. --- Ciao Romano
[7/7] from: ptretter:charter at: 6-Jan-2004 10:53
Getting the windows titles would be much easier if RT would include callback functionality at some point. ;) I can't seem to comment about that enough. Paul Tretter