[Ardour-Dev] Website integration with Ardour interface

Patrick Shirkey pshirkey at boosthardware.com
Mon Jan 19 21:19:41 PST 2009

Thomas Vecchione wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Patrick Shirkey 
> <pshirkey at boosthardware.com <mailto:pshirkey at boosthardware.com>> wrote:
>     With xul runner it will load at runtime so it would not contribute
>     to any inefficiency in ardour unless enabled.  The code required
>     to embed it into the interface is quite minimal. The only addition
>     would be including the xulrunner folders in the  Ardour package so
>     they are always available.
> I personally think this is not minimal to be honest.  XULRunner last I 
> checked also provides a complete UI setup as well, which is tons of 
> waste there.

We already have tons of waste in the libraries that are statically 
linked in the package.

>     It would make Ardour a complete standalone solution and make it
>     that much harder for users *not* to get involved.
> Ardour already IS a complete standalone solution to be honest.
Not yet.

>     I don't see why it is a problem to embed a browser if we are going
>     to have external links directly in the interface and expect people
>     to be connected to the internet in order to contribute anyway.
> Several reasons.  One, providing an ability to launch an external web 
> browser means less code to upkeep by having it contained in a seperate 
> program.  Large difference between code to execute an external 
> program, vs code to render XML out in a specific method to a window, 
> as I am sure you are aware.
You don;t have to upkeep any code other than the small amount of code 
that it takes to embed the plugin. Everything else is maintained by the 
mozilla crewz.

> Second, and this is a big one for end users, in many cases having 
> production systems not connect to the internet is standard practice.  
> Be it a Windows, Mac, or when it picks up likely Linux as well.  It is 
> that much less to worry about, when you don't need to for a purpose 
> built machine.  I know I would never consider having a machine 
> connected to the internet for any machine I was going to record a live 
> show on.  I don't care if it is Linux, Mac or Windows, it doesn't need 
> to be worried about that, I will disable anything I possibly can as it 
> is that much less chance of something odd happening to screw things up.
I don't know how many times I have said now and I do recall you actually 
agreed a couple of times that it could be disabled with a config option. 
Did you forget or are you just looking for a way to shoot the idea down? 
The more times you forget the less validity the rest of your argument 
has. Please don't forget it again.

Config option = disable interface (optional paid License key to disable)

>     IMO, The only thing making it an issue is the time it takes to add
>     the code. It might even be faster than creating and laying out a
>     custom screen with embedded links. Also any changes that get made
>     to the website are immediately visible.
> To be honest the time to add the code isn't the issue at all for me.  
> The issue is as an end user it is not what I want to deal with.  Also 
> to be honest *I* could probably write the code to do this in Ardour, 
> which means that it is probably minimal effort to embed.  But 
> upkeeping it to match changing web standards for example, as the 
> Ardour website stays up to date, is something to consider.
We don't have to maintain anything. The Mozilla team looks after that 
for us.

>     Seems like it would actually be less maintenance in the long run.
> I would strongly disagree.

What is it exactly that we would have to maintain?

>     It would also allow users to make financial contributions from
>     directly inside the app while they are using it which is the most
>     likely time they will feel like giving anyway.
> And this I think would be a possible mistake to say the least.  The 
> moment you introduce someone needing to handle financial information 
> you add another level of paranoia for most people.
There can be a disclaimer.  "Something like: Ardour does not store any 
information entered into the web interface. All financial information is 
handled by Paypal Inc..."

Also most people don;t get paranoid when they use the paypal interface.

> Its not that I don't get what you are trying to do.  It is that I 
> strongly disagree with the implementation you are suggesting to 
> achieve such a goal.  It is much better IMO to let the user's web 
> browser handle all the web browsing side of things and not duplicate 
> what is essentially unneeded functionality that would likely add 
> problems and more maintenence in the future.
I strongly disagree that we should be asking the non contributing users 
to open up a seperate browser when we can handle that for them 
internally. The browser interface would connect directly to the ardour 
website and would not be able to be used for standard browsing. We would 
not have to provide any tool bars, buttons or nav bars if we did not 
want to.

This does go against the Unix way but the point is to get to the non 
Unix people who are now the majority userbase for Ardour.

Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.

More information about the Ardour-Dev mailing list