[Sugar-devel] Sugar-web can't find web socket port
lionel at olpc-france.org
Wed Feb 26 16:22:48 EST 2014
Okay. So I've included the 0.0.0.0 test into the pull request  that
merge Sugarizer with Sugar Web.
It will be easy to go back to the protocol test when webkit2 version for
the XO will be available.
2014-02-25 23:14 GMT+01:00 Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>:
> IMO sugarizer and standalone should be both supported modes. Being able to
> just load a single activity in a browser is great.
> I think what I suggested in a previous thread was to use a well know local
> storage key to detect that we are inside sugarizer. Open to other
> approaches if anyone has better ideas...
> I'm not sure about 0.0.0.0 for webkit1, ideally a local web server would
> normally use standalone mode... But I guess it's fine as a short time hack.
> Hopefully we will get webkit2 on the XO at some point.
> On Tuesday, 25 February 2014, Lionel Laské <lionel at olpc-france.org> wrote:
>> > What means "Standalone" ?
>>> Standalone means
>>> Ok. Thanks for the explanation.
>>> > FYI the method return true because env.getURLScheme() return "http",
>>> so the test condition is false.
>>> > Does it mean that the test condition should not be this ?
>>> It means you are using WebkitGTK1. We encourage web development in
>>> WebkitGTK2. The WK1 is a fallback.
>>> > Any suggestion about this method is welcome.
>>> I suggest you do web development on sugar-build. I guess some day XOs
>>> will come with latest Fedora. We can't rely in old Webkit because it
>>> limits development.
>> Hmm, I'm using the latest build of Sugar 0.100 here .
>> Does it means that there is no way to test WK2 on a real XO ?
>> The reason I'm working to merge Sugarizer with Sugar Web is precisely to
>> allow a developer to write web activities for the XO without using
>> sugar-build. Today, because of the WK1 issue and this Standalone test it
>> means that the generated activity will never work on the XO-4 with Sugar
>> 0.100 :-(
>> Except if you think it's a bad idea, my suggestion is to completely
>> remove the "isStandalone" test.
>> In fact, with the new "isSugarizer" test that I'm working on, I think we
>> could consider that Sugarizer supersede the Standalone mode, so the test is
>> not need.
>> Does it make sense for you ?
>>  http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.100/Testing
> Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Sugar-devel