<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Patrick Shirkey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pshirkey@boosthardware.com">pshirkey@boosthardware.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Thomas Vecchione wrote:<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Patrick Shirkey <<a href="mailto:pshirkey@boosthardware.com" target="_blank">pshirkey@boosthardware.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:pshirkey@boosthardware.com" target="_blank">pshirkey@boosthardware.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
With xul runner it will load at runtime so it would not contribute<br>
to any inefficiency in ardour unless enabled. The code required<br>
to embed it into the interface is quite minimal. The only addition<br>
would be including the xulrunner folders in the Ardour package so<br>
they are always available.<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
We already have tons of waste in the libraries that are statically linked in the package.<div class="Ih2E3d"></div></blockquote><div><br>So adding more is a good thing? I really don't understand that at all.<br> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<br>
It would make Ardour a complete standalone solution and make it<br>
that much harder for users *not* to get involved.<br>
<br>
<br>
Ardour already IS a complete standalone solution to be honest.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
Not yet.<div class="Ih2E3d"></div></blockquote><div><br>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?<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
I don't see why it is a problem to embed a browser if we are going<br>
to have external links directly in the interface and expect people<br>
to be connected to the internet in order to contribute anyway.<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
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.</blockquote><div> </div><div>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.<br>
<blockquote>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.<br>
</blockquote></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Config option = disable interface (optional paid License key to disable)<div class="Ih2E3d"></div></blockquote><div><br><br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br></div>
We don't have to maintain anything. The Mozilla team looks after that for us.<div class="Ih2E3d"></div></blockquote><div><br>See above. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Also most people don;t get paranoid when they use the paypal interface.<div class="Ih2E3d"></div></blockquote><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>I do, even through web browsers. I purposely avoid Paypal like the plague, but that is a side topic.<br>
<br><br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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.<br>
<br>
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.<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"></div></div></blockquote><div><br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br> Seablade<br></div></div>