Re: [Demexp-dev] And now, what for demexp--dev--0.7?

[Felix HENRY]

Hi David and all,


Concerning the fact that it may be difficult for a newbie to set up its
client, I thing it may have more to do with the process of connecting
as "root", creating its own account, reconnecting, and so on...
Once we have a server where accounts are created by administrators,
this should make initial contact with the software easier
(you only need your login & mdp, and the address of the server)


> So, once again, I'm considering a way to have a web interface to
> demexp.


There is also another strong advantage of having a web interface. At the
moment the client runs under linux as a package for some architectures,
binary
otherwise, and under windows version when Christophe (who has been kind
enough
to make the effort of compiling it, but said he does not want to be the
"official" windows porter) manages to compile it (BTW I have never seen a
software refusing to compile under Christophe's gentle pressure).
With a web client there is no porting stage anymore (now that
I wrote this I just realize that's exactly what you said in [4] in your
mail...)

> - At one point, I considered implementing a Firefox plugin for demexp,
>   but as I would like to keep the RPC protocol between client and
>   server, it would make a complicated plugin (XPCOM component, biding
>   between C++ and OCaml) or would be a Javascript nightmare. And the
>   task of installing a plugin would lost us users;
>
> - Another approach would be to implement a module on the server side
>   that makes the link between the web server and the demexp server;
>
> - The last approach would be to implement an HTTP server into the
>   current demexp server.
>
> I'm in favor of the second approach, that still forces us to keep the
> RPC protocol and separate the server issues from client issues.


If I understand correctly, this means a solution where a web client "talks"
to a web server and then the web server access the demexp server, but the
demexp server does not see the difference between this type of access and
a regular binary client? I have no objection but I just want to confirm I
understood it.


>
> The other important issues are to see if it could be possible:
>
> - to implement the new ideas developed by Jean-Marie and myself in the
>   web interface. I think this can be done, maybe with a little less
>   nice graphical layout (but Jean-Marie is good at CSS, XHTML and
>   graphics, so that could be a big plus. Having fancy graphics is
>   important for users... and developers ;-) ;
>
> - to implement user side delegation (no idea how to do that, we need to
>   think about it).
>

Given your arguments and the other ones discussed on the mailing list
I certainly support the development of a web interface.

> [2] Names concealed to keep them in the project. :)


I'll stay anyway :-) .
Just can't remember my password. Tried several.
Kind of an aging thing I guess :-)

> [4] Or find packagers like Thomas and Thomas for all linux distribs and
>    full time developers like Christophe Gisquet for Windows and Mac
>    ports, plus a full time developer to improve the client.



  Felix