[Ardour-Dev] Website integration with Ardour interface

Thomas Vecchione seablaede at gmail.com
Mon Jan 19 22:13:24 PST 2009

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Patrick Shirkey <
pshirkey at boosthardware.com> wrote:

> 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.

So adding more is a good thing?  I really don't understand that at all.

>>    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.

Exactly how so? Because a DAW doesn't have a web browser integrated in it?
Seems to me if you have other reasons it isn't standalone maybe those should
be addressed first?

>>    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.

Going off memory, I believe they already deprecated one predecessor to
XULRunner, and in the future I would expect API changes or deprecation to
follow forcing upgrades as web technologies change.

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)

You have started a new thread specifically on this topic, I tend to not
assume anything from other threads in that case, unless I specifically state
I am referencing that thread.  Having a compile time option is a
possibility, having it runtime is one that I would disagree with.  I still
disagree with the concept, even if it was a compile time option.

And for the record, if you want me to remember every possibly comment from
multiple threads encompassing hundreds of posts(Quite literally, I count 100
in the original thread alone) I am afraid you are going to be dissapointed.
This of course doesn't count the other hundreds of posts I read between
other mailing lists, forums, and even forums I moderate.

> We don't have to maintain anything. The Mozilla team looks after that for
> us.

See above.

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

I do, even through web browsers.  I purposely avoid Paypal like the plague,
but that is a side topic.

 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.

It is not only that it goes against the Unix way of doing things, which I am
not even sure I would necessarily agree with, but doesn't really matter.  It
also goes against the purpose of a DAW in my opinion.  Let me put it another
way, in what way would this benefit the workflow of using Ardour?  Because
it can be a detriment to the eyes of many users, like I already stated.  And
I can't see how it would benefit users or the use of Ardour in that case.
Don't get me wrong, it would be a benefit to the developers and draw more
attention to getting funding, which I do not think is a bad thing, but I do
think that balancing that vs the needs of the desired users as well is a
very important balance, and one that is better achieved by having things
unrelated to the workflwo of the DAW stay outside of the DAW.

But in the end I think you and I are just going to have to agree to
disagree.  You seem to have a very different desires than I do, which is
your right just as it is mine.  It is up to Paul to decide which he wants to
follow with Ardour, if either.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-dev-ardour.org/attachments/20090120/b4b71617/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the Ardour-Dev mailing list