acmeattic-devel team mailing list archive
-
acmeattic-devel team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #00061
Re: Web application changes (proposal)
On Wednesday 14 July 2010 12:15 AM, krishnan parthasarathi wrote:
The browser based client is being described as a firefox addon in the
blueprint. The browser based client needs to be able to
decrypt/encrypt data given the key from the client local filesystem
and transmit messages to server using the message protocol we design.
I think this can be done using Java Script. OTOH, a firefox addon is
written only if you want to extend the functionality of the browser to
perform extra functions. for eg, playing mp3, displaying pdf files,
etc. Do we want to abstract our browser based client app as an
extension of firefox's functionality?
No, we do not need to abstract it as a browser extension. If we use
Javascript, it will have to be served by a webserver - there is the
issue of trusting this code. The difference with using a browser
extension is that all the source code is available to the user, and so
can be trusted. We can have clients implemented in JS, as a separate
server application perhaps even running on a different server machine,
etc, and other people can implement them too - exposing a server API
just illustrates that all this is possible. I would however suggest that
if we write a browser based client, it should be an extension, so that a
user can trust it.
--
Aditya.
References