WebDialogs using Chrome : any interest ?

Dan Rathbun

I can accept that for those remaining XP users, my plugin could be used only by administrators.

Just a note on "usability" ...

We want everyone (and I'm sure Google does also,) to be able to use GCF easily (meaning transparently to the non-geek average user,) and safely.

It would be a 2 step process:

1) The end user, will need to install GCF (if they don't already have a full Chrome install,) by painlessly using the webinstall. (For companies, municiplaities or other organizations behind firewalls, their IT Admins can use the MSI installer if they wish. Set up an intranet install, etc.)

2) Install a little plugin that I'll write that will likely create a subclass of UI::WebDialog, so as not to interfer with plugins that rely on their webdialogs rendering in a pure IE dialog frame. (I think allowing users to force all webdialogs into GCF, may open up Pandora's Box, and cause problems. Testing will tell.)

iaselle

OK, so I'm staying tuned of your development and will in the meantime make sure that my plugin is compatible with the different flavors of IE.

Thanks to Virtualbox, it is now easier to do this ...

JD Hill

@dan rathbun said:

I think allowing users to force all webdialogs into GCF, may open up Pandora's Box, and cause problems. Testing will tell.

I hope you don't even consider doing that. It is not simply a matter of possibly breaking some plugins in relatively minor ways: there exist plugins which could potentially cease to function entirely. My plugin, for example, uses Silverlight, and I neither know, nor plan on finding out, how well it is supported in GCF -- if it is even supported at all.

Dan Rathbun

@jd hill said:

@dan rathbun said:

I think allowing users to force all webdialogs into GCF, may open up Pandora's Box, and cause problems. Testing will tell.

I hope you don't even consider doing that. ...

No JD, my previous language is just politically correct.

I DO NOT WISH TO SCREW UP ANYONE"S PLUGINS !!!!!

JD Hill

I'm very sure of that, and it was not my intention to imply otherwise. It just sounded like you were keeping that possibility open, so I felt the need to speak up. If it's your intention that it be strictly opt-in though, the idea sounds nothing but good to me.