[9fans] webfs + mozilla

[9fans] webfs + mozilla

[Enrico Weigelt]

Hi folks,


I'm now thinking about changing mozilla to use webfs instead of
its own protocol handling for quite some while (the whole caching
machinery should also be kicked off in this process and delegated
to either an local proxy like wwwoffle or implemented in webfs).

The big question to me now is: can webfs already handle everything
that a full-blown browser needs ? For example, https and certificates ?
How can the necessary information be accessed at the right time,
eg. for things like asking the user whether to accept some cert, etc.


In longer terms, I'd also replace mozilla's handling of other
protocols, eg. ftp, by an webfs implementation.


What do you think about this ?



cu
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/

 phone:  +49 36207 519931  email: weigelt@metux.de
 mobile: +49 151 27565287  icq:   210169427         skype: nekrad666
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] webfs + mozilla

[erik quanstrom]

> In longer terms, I'd also replace mozilla's handling of other
> protocols, eg. ftp, by an webfs implementation.
>
>
> What do you think about this ?

webfs is client side, not server side.

- erik

Re: [9fans] webfs + mozilla

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 474 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:56 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>wrote:

> > In longer terms, I'd also replace mozilla's handling of other
> > protocols, eg. ftp, by an webfs implementation.
> >
> >
> > What do you think about this ?
>
> webfs is client side, not server side.
>
> - erik
>
> I must confess, I understood the question more than this comment.

Why not use webfs for Mozilla?  How much code could be saved by re-using the
webfs service?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 820 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] webfs + mozilla

[Steve Simon]

I have been working on some improvments to webfs which I shall push out very soon.
Webfs is good as far as it goes, but it is missing some things, different content
encodings (gzip etc) and persistent sessions are the most obvious ones.

Basicially it is an http 1.0 client which has some 1.1 extensions, probably
nothing like enough for what you want.

It does support https, ftp, certificates however.

there is also no cache built into webfs, this might be a good idea, though
perhaps the cache should be seperate, I haven't worked out the right way to
do this yet. (anyone ?)

-Steve