[tahoe-lafs-trac-stream] [Tahoe-LAFS] #1000: add 'Tahoe Explorer' (JavaScript-based UI) to Tahoe

[Tahoe-LAFS]

#1000: add 'Tahoe Explorer' (JavaScript-based UI) to Tahoe
-----------------------------------+------------------------
     Reporter:  davidsarah         |      Owner:  davidsarah
         Type:  enhancement        |     Status:  assigned
     Priority:  major              |  Milestone:  soon
    Component:  code-frontend-web  |    Version:  1.6.0
   Resolution:                     |   Keywords:  jsui
Launchpad Bug:                     |
-----------------------------------+------------------------
Changes (by warner):

 * component:  code-frontend => code-frontend-web


Old description:

> Toby Murray [http://allmydata.org/pipermail/tahoe-
> dev/2010-March/004137.html has written] a !JavaScript front-end called
> "Tahoe Explorer", which looks very promising -- particularly from the
> point of view of solving [query:status!=closed&keywords~=capleak security
> problems with the existing WUI], as well as potentially better usability
> and performance. (It's not often you get to improve all of those at the
> same time!)
>
> I don't think this should be added just as a 'contrib' package; it is
> liable to bitrot that way.
>
> The original code was dependent on Cajita, which would have required
> solving some (minor) [ticket:995#comment:7 licensing issues], but it
> turns out that this dependency is easily removed.
>
> Of more concern is that the code has no unit tests. We need to decide how
> to test !JavaScript code (there are several possibilities including
> [http://www.jsunit.org JSUnit] and [http://www.getwindmill.com Windmill];
> I'll open another ticket about that).

New description:

 Toby Murray [http://allmydata.org/pipermail/tahoe-
 dev/2010-March/004137.html has written] a !JavaScript front-end called
 "Tahoe Explorer", which looks very promising -- particularly from the
 point of view of solving [query:status!=closed&keywords~=capleak security
 problems with the existing WUI], as well as potentially better usability
 and performance. (It's not often you get to improve all of those at the
 same time!)

 I don't think this should be added just as a 'contrib' package; it is
 liable to bitrot that way.

 The original code was dependent on Cajita, which would have required
 solving some (minor) [ticket:995#comment:7 licensing issues], but it turns
 out that this dependency is easily removed.

 Of more concern is that the code has no unit tests. We need to decide how
 to test !JavaScript code (there are several possibilities including
 [http://www.jsunit.org JSUnit] and [http://www.getwindmill.com Windmill];
 I'll open another ticket about that).

--

--
Ticket URL: <https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1000#comment:4>
Tahoe-LAFS <https://Tahoe-LAFS.org>
secure decentralized storage