After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 362511 - Epiphany Plugin needs some love
Epiphany Plugin needs some love
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: beagle
Classification: Other
Component: General
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal trivial
: ---
Assigned To: Kevin Kubasik
Beagle Bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-10-16 02:18 UTC by Kevin Kubasik
Modified: 2007-10-31 21:07 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Inital Update of Epiphany Plugin (9.27 KB, patch)
2006-10-16 02:26 UTC, Kevin Kubasik
none Details | Review
Update (13.68 KB, patch)
2006-10-16 02:28 UTC, Kevin Kubasik
none Details | Review

Description Kevin Kubasik 2006-10-16 02:18:40 UTC
The epiphany plugin is insecure and slow, its dangerous and no where near as complete as the firefox plugin. The epiphany plugin should be brought up to the same level that the firefox plugin is.
Comment 1 Kevin Kubasik 2006-10-16 02:26:47 UTC
Created attachment 74773 [details] [review]
Inital Update of Epiphany Plugin

Ok, heres a nice new epiphany extension which uses the python interface now offered in epiphany to do web page indexing about the same way firefox does.

Known Issues:
1) Cannot determine encoding for Metadata file, epiphany doesn't expose the encoding info to us.
2) Needs some sort of settings manager, the actual implementation of this should be pretty simple, but there are design issues, do we want to use gconf? store the settings in an epiphany dir? or in the beagle one?
3) Needs some GUI elements and love, at the moment I have the skeleton code in here for a GUI configuration panel, but I'm not experienced with pygtk at all, so I could use some help.

If everyone is ok with the build changes, I think we should probably commit this in over the old extension, since its so slow and painful that even if we can't get configuration stuff into this, it still beats the heck out the old one, but thats just my $0.02.
Comment 2 Kevin Kubasik 2006-10-16 02:28:29 UTC
Created attachment 74774 [details] [review]
Update

oops, forgot a file.
Comment 3 Joe Shaw 2006-10-17 19:01:38 UTC
Looks fine as a proof-of-concept, but I'd prefer to keep it in C if we can.
Comment 4 Kevin Kubasik 2006-10-19 00:41:41 UTC
Why? Epiphany is packaged with its python support. I'm just asking because C will be much harder (for me at least) to put together, and we already use python elsewhere in the beagle bindings (I even thought about just using the native api, but didn't wanna force the pybeagle bindings as a dependency of the extension).

I have no issue with it being written in C, but since the extension still needs a GUI, I know that writing a settings panel in straight gtk really isn't something I can get done soon. (Its just too steep a learning curve for the time being) but I could expect to get a few simple pygtk checkboxes. 

I don't wanna be a pain, and I'll go with whatever decision is made. I'm just curious about the attachment to C, as python is getting pretty popular, and I am far more familar with it then I am C. 

Maybe I'm just defensive ;)

 
Comment 5 Debajyoti Bera 2007-10-31 21:07:55 UTC
Well... the epiphany extension was rewritten, and in Python. Its in trunk waiting for the next release.