Web vs Native (was Re: HTML5 limitations?)
waprothero at gmail.com
Fri Jul 28 12:28:12 EDT 2017
As a long term Director developer, I found the use of listeners and callbacks to be quite easy to implement. I don’t see the problem.
—send a POST or GET request, whatever, with a callback handler specified.
—display a mask that inhibits new mouse clicks and sets a busy icon.
on myCallbackHander myReturnData
—do whatever you want with myReturnData
On Jul 28, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Jonathan Lynch via use-livecode <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Although I am one of the people calling for more browser widget development...
> I have my doubts about the ability to make it synchronous with LC.
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Jul 28, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-07-28 16:47, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami via use-livecode wrote:
>>> Hence oft-repeated prayer that we get the browser "widget" to become a
>>> true member of the LC message hierarchy, they we can leverage the web
>>> apps eye candy layer (easy to build, responsive, CSS is already done
>>> for us…) with LC powerful framework, so that we don't have to waste
>>> time using JS to get work done, but use it just for "clicking here and
>>> there" while LC does the heavy lifting in the background.
>> I can assure you your 'prayer' has been heard - however, there is a slight chasm between hearing a prayer and being able to act on it (especially for mere mortals, like ourselves ;)).
>> There is a whole (reasonably sized) 'new market' for LiveCode in the space of providing the shell into which HTML5/JS webapps can be placed. i.e. The creation of a native app which wraps a HTML5/JS web-app which then has direct access to all the platform features LiveCode gives you access to (a bit like PhoneGap or Cordova or ... - the fact there are so many of these things suggests that it is a very useful thing that people actually want to do). Now, this works quite well right now - although I do appreciate that the asynchronous nature of return values from the host (LiveCode) does make some things more difficult to do (*although*, it should be pointed out that async something I think *all* other host environments that provide this kind of wrapping have to put up with!).
>> However, as you have may have noticed (from various comments - sometimes positive, sometimes not, mostly not - about CEF) there is a fair bit of technical challenge involved in having a browser widget and keeping it working on all platforms. Now, this is not to say we do not like technical challenges - we clearly do. However, in general, the greater the technical challenge, the greater the resources required to solve it.
>> Such an endeavour *has* to be self supporting - i.e. it needs to generate enough revenue in order to justify its existence. The browser widget as it stands is already taxing us on that front (it is really important, so whilst I sometimes get concerned about the 'money-pit' it sometimes seems to be, one has to remind oneself that some things are a long-term investment).
>> Of course, the above is entirely related to technical issues - there is also the problem of selling LiveCode and this feature into such a space...
>> That old adage of 'build it and they will come' is quite possibly one of the biggest load of bovine-backend-excretion that has ever been uttered. Build it and, well, most people will walk by it, some might look at it and go 'oh that's nice' and walk on, very few will actually take the time to visit it without some sort of cajoling. Unfortunately, this kind of activity (I'm of course talking about marketing) tends to be a great deal more expensive than development (I could make the rather cynical observation that there is a reason why marketing consultant's offices tend to be a great deal 'nicer' than those of computing consultants - but I should probably keep that to myself ;)) and it is only through marketing such things that you can make them generate enough revenue to pay for their seat at the table.
>> So TL;DR version. Yes - Kevin and I would both like to do more with the browser widget as it is actually a really really cool thing (so we hear your prayers - every one). However, right now, we simply don't feel we have the bandwidth (to use a Kevinism) to do it properly in a way where the endeavour can be fully self-supporting. Also, we are already seated at a rather large dinner at the moment (Infinite LiveCode, LiveCode Connect, LiveCodeForFM, Version 9, Maintenance of 8, ...) so perhaps need to finish *at least* one of those courses before we embark on the next (no-one likes indigestion, after all).
>> Warmest Regards,
>> P.S. By the way, I'm mainly saying all of this to make it clear that we have been listening, we are just not able to act on it at the moment. Please *do* keep poking us about it - as it keeps the idea in our minds, and each time it comes up it causes a re-evaluation. It also helps to remind people that they CAN use LiveCode for this kind of stuff and so should - which is a precursor to being able to convince people who are not 'LiveCoders' that LiveCode might be something they should check out... If only to give them an easier way to ship a 'native' HTML5/JS app.
>> P.P.S. We are also fully away that this 'HTML5/JS' wrapper idea is also very much a gorilla activity - they might come for the wrapper, but stay because of LiveCode. However, one still needs to capture and tame the gorilla first ;)
>> P.P.P.S. Yes - I know it should have been 'guerilla', it is just that using 'gorilla' seemed more fun.
>> Mark Waddingham ~ mark at livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
>> LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode