Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

[Plugin] is cool

 [1/17] from: hallvard:ystad:oops-as:no at: 21-Apr-2004 0:22


Hi, The plugin module for MSIE is cool. And with the javascript access to the browser's DOM tree, interesting things can be done. I've added a feature to the rix search engine: plug the scripts in directly. So if you get "plugable" results from a search (e.g. http://www.oops-as.no/rix?q=plugin&st=sfh), there will be a link with the words "plug it in!". Once you click it, you get to see the script as a plugin right away. But. How can I know the width and height parameters of all rebol scripts? I can't. But these parameters can be set from inside a plugin script thanks to 'do-browser. Here's how you do it: do-browser {document.getElementById('RPluginIE').width=100; document.getElementById('RPluginIE').height=100;} This example sets both width and height to 100 pixels. (Isn't it funny how rebol in this case must use a javascript to set it's own parameters?) Width and height should of course be whatever suits your script best. If all scripts contained these lines, my new rix feature would be even cooler.... For those who would like to have your scripts indexed, but not plugged in, consider this: do-browser {top.location.href="http://www.rebol.net/plugin/demos/anamonitor.html";} OK, time to go to bed. HY

 [2/17] from: paulporter:buffalotalks at: 21-Apr-2004 7:02


> The plugin module for MSIE is cool. And with the javascript access to the > browser's DOM tree, interesting things can be done. >
Yes it is cool but MSIE is such a security sive that my company, and a growing list of others, have banned the use of IE. I would really like to see development of the Plugin module for Mozilla/FireFox take place. Paul -- Linux User Number: 348867

 [3/17] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 21-Apr-2004 13:36


[paulporter--buffalotalks--com] wrote:
>>The plugin module for MSIE is cool. And with the javascript access to the >>browser's DOM tree, interesting things can be done.
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
>see development of the Plugin module for Mozilla/FireFox take place. >Paul
Are you new here? :-) According to some ppl Mozilla simply does not work properly, nor does 50% of Flash work :-) Well - no need to start browser war here, RT's strategy is clear - start with IE, produce stable release and follow with NS type plug-in. In their announcement, they stated NS plug-in will follow, they just did not clarified when. But - I share your sentiment ..... plug-in will not imo gain enough of acceptance if NS type plug-in don't come soon enough = at least imo this year. Most potential developers (not talking intranets here) will come from camps caring about alternatives pretty much. For many youg ppl IE as a browser is simply non-existant, but of course my pov is biased, as I come from computer related user camp, where alternatives are more often used than with average home user. Anyway - plug-in is cool even in its current form, just not stable for 1.0 release (still no working proxy support, random crashes reported). I think once RT solves such issues, they will start looking into NS plug-in once again, as we have some cool folks here who are fluent with C/C++ and who offered RT help to set-up Mozilla dev. environment, which according to some ppl on web is a bit chaotic sometimes ... One important issue which has to be solved in the future though is multiple plug-in instances per page, or banners are not possible. I hope RT keeps that request in mind to later not introduce incompatibilities once such support is added. -pekr-

 [4/17] from: ptretter:charter at: 21-Apr-2004 6:41


We all want to see development on other browsers as well. However, we had this discussion on the REBOL/View world and it was quite obvious that most agreed that RT's efforts are better spent on other projects for now. As for the IE problem your company experienced, we have indications that IE Is growing in support. In fact IE security is not a problem in our 170,000+ employees. Besides none of the other browsers are really fit for Enterprise level rollouts that adapt to robust Global policies. Your company should really contact an IT firm also to get better facts about IE. Here is a good link for more info about browser stats: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp Paul Tretter

 [5/17] from: paulporter:buffalotalks at: 21-Apr-2004 8:29


> Are you new here? :-)
Yes I am new, so new that I'm still trying to figure out exactly what Rebol is and how I can best capitalize on it's unique features.
> According to some ppl Mozilla simply does not work > properly, nor does 50% of Flash work :-)
That's interesting. I can only speak of my own experiences but I use Mozilla/FireFox on both my Linux and MS machines and have never experienced a moments trouble from either. As for Flash I have set it so that I only view those Flash apps that I choose to click on; but I've not had any problems with it either. Admittedly I don't choose to view very many flash movies though.
> Well - no need to start browser war here
It certainly was not my intent to start a browser war. It is strange to me the way people turn computer brands into a religion; to me it's just another tool. I don't hear of people getting their backs up over someone preferring Craftsman over Stanley yet in the computer world... oh well humans are an interesting lot aren't they?
> RT's strategy is clear - start with IE, produce stable release > and follow with NS type plug-in. In their announcement, they stated NS > plug-in will follow, they just did not clarified when.
I look forward to trying the NS plug-in when it materializes. Thank you for your kind response. Paul -- Linux User Number: 348867

 [6/17] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 21-Apr-2004 14:49


Paul Tretter wrote:
>We all want to see development on other browsers as well. However, we had >this discussion on the REBOL/View world and it was quite obvious that most
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
>link for more info about browser stats: >http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
and here are links about WindowsXP security issues at all :-) http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm http://www.jsware.net/jsware/viinfo.html Paul - your company is probably very well protected by strong architecture (firewalls, VPNs, IDS systems, strict user policies, probably limited web access etc.). It always depends upon what architecture are you using. We e.g. run 40+ Novell servers, so no MS Windows based users login into domains etc., no tools to remote administration. As from what you describe - you are probably very much dependant upon MS architecture, where various tools are well designed to fit together. We face basic problems - antivirus systems are not enough. We are thinking into plugging-in some adware protection tools, setting all our machines to automatically update Windows, and maybe even personal firewals in some longer future. My personal prediction is, that the situation will become only worse re security. But let me say that I can't somehow believe that IE is secure enough for you without additional settings/twists, but most ppl use it as-is, as it comes with OS. The fact is - you never know until new bug is found. And new issues are being found way too often to my liking ... As for getting "getting enough facts about IE" - just put some scan on IE + Win vulnerabilities - there is plenty of facts :-) I don't believe IE is growing in support. I read other reports stating otherwise and what is more - IE6 is not developed for 2 years already and new version will come with Longhorn (2006?), etc. Those are arguments, which could/should be put into consideration too - 11 - 13% of alternatives is not small number at all and besides that IE is no option for Mac users anymore anyway .... -pekr-

 [7/17] from: paulporter:buffalotalks at: 21-Apr-2004 9:13


The point is mute, I don't make the rules and the rule for us is no MSIE; this is the only "fact" I need. Paul -- Linux User Number: 348867

 [8/17] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 21-Apr-2004 17:15


[paulporter--buffalotalks--com] wrote:
>The point is mute, I don't make the rules and the rule for us is no MSIE; >this is the only "fact" I need. > >Paul >
Well, "I need" - that is correct of course, but others may have another needs .... I can expect such large company has pretty much their development tools already set in stone. I wonder if there might be any chance of rebol plug-in (IE or Mozz, that does not matter now), to fit in? Just curious, because I know I would hit the wall here easily .... And if rebol plug-in does not win intranet scenarios, the situation turns out being more difficult, because outer world is not only Win + IE ..... -pekr-

 [9/17] from: paulporter:buffalotalks at: 21-Apr-2004 11:51


As far as application development goes I'm given pretty much free rain. The only edict set in stone is that anything that is developed must be cross platform complient; Windows-to-Linux, Linux-to-Windows. Most of my work is PHP/MySQL so that edict doesn't effect me to any great extent. I initially was looking at Rebol as a messaging tool (to me it appears to be much more friendly, in that capacity, then Java). As I read about and play with Rebol I am seeing some real possibilities for it in other areas as well. Once I have gotten to where I am comfortable working in it and have a better understanding of it's use and capabilities I can send it up for approval and add Rebol to my toolbox. As for the plug-in it has no chance in our setting on two counts; One we don't use IE and two the NS plug-in doesn't exist. I think that having the plup-in available for Mozilla/FireFox would be a plus in my bid for getting Rebol approved for use; but I feel pretty confident that I will have little trouble getting approval any way, if I can show that I am able to use it to develop those apps that we require. Personally I find myself amazed at the compactness & speed of Rebol. I don't know the language itself well enough to appreciate it's ease of use, but I expect to be totally blown away by that aspect as well. I do appreciate your input. Paul -- Linux User Number: 348867

 [10/17] from: bry:itnisk at: 21-Apr-2004 19:41


I guess there should be an error try on that do-browser right?
> Hi, > > The plugin module for MSIE is cool. And
with the javascript access to the browser's DOM tree, interesting things can be done.
> I've added a feature to the rix search
engine: plug the scripts in directly. So if you get plugable results from a search (e.g. http://www.oops-as.no/rix?q=plugin&st=sfh), there will be a link with the words "plug it in!". Once you click it, you get to see the script as a plugin right away.
> But. > > How can I know the width and height
parameters of all rebol scripts? I can't. But these parameters can be set from inside a plugin script thanks to 'do-browser. Here's how you do it:
> do-browser {document.getElementById
('RPluginIE').width=100; document.getElementById ('RPluginIE').height=100;}
> This example sets both width and height to
100 pixels. (Isn't it funny how rebol in this case must use a javascript to set it's own parameters?) Width and height should of course be whatever suits your script best. If all scripts contained these lines, my new rix feature would be even cooler... For those who would like to have your scripts indexed, but not plugged in, consider this:
> do-browser
{top.location.href="http://www.rebol.net/plug in/demos/anamonitor.html";}

 [11/17] from: hallvard:ystad:oops-as:no at: 21-Apr-2004 20:28


Dixit [bry--itnisk--com] (20.41 21.04.2004):
>I guess there should be an error try on that >do-browser right?
Good idea, although I've never had any problems. HY

 [12/17] from: ammon:addept:ws at: 21-Apr-2004 18:18


> It certainly was not my intent to start a browser war. It is strange to > me the way people turn computer brands into a religion; to me it's just > another tool. I don't hear of people getting their backs up over someone > preferring Craftsman over Stanley yet in the computer world... oh well > humans are an interesting lot aren't they?
You don't know the boys I do then do you? ;~> Enjoy!! ~~Ammon ;~>

 [13/17] from: bry:itnisk at: 22-Apr-2004 10:05


right but if you want to set up something that allows you just to test unknown rebol scripts as pluggable.

 [14/17] from: hallvard:ystad:oops-as:no at: 22-Apr-2004 13:06


The javascripts I was referring to, must be _inside_ the rebol code. So all I need to do to test misc. rebol code as plugins, is to provide the LauncURL parameter to the OBJECT-tag. Works quite well, actually. HY Dixit [bry--itnisk--com] (11.05 22.04.2004):

 [15/17] from: bry:itnisk at: 22-Apr-2004 14:00


I'm thinking we must be miscommunicating, if UI write a script that is pluggable but I want it to run non-plugged in most cases then I should add in an error try to check if do-browser works. actually i haven't checked the newest version of the plugin, been working, but IIRC earlier versions crashed if one tried to try do-browser for errors.
> The javascripts I was referring to, must
be _inside_ the rebol code. So all I need to do to test misc. rebol code as plugins, is to provide the LauncURL parameter to the OBJECT-tag. Works quite well, actually.

 [16/17] from: bry:itnisk at: 22-Apr-2004 14:01


actually it might be good to have a plugin script that kept track of all plugin scripts in the library, and then you could use that script to set the LaunchUrl parameter of the object tag using do-browser.
> The javascripts I was referring to, must
be _inside_ the rebol code. So all I need to do to test misc. rebol code as plugins, is to provide the LauncURL parameter to the OBJECT-tag. Works quite well, actually.

 [17/17] from: hallvard:ystad:oops-as:no at: 22-Apr-2004 20:57


Oh, I see. Of course, then you would need to 'try. Sorry, I didn't think in that direction at all. HY Dixit [bry--itnisk--com] (15.00 22.04.2004):

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted