I'm looking for means of telling whether other instances of a Chrome app are already running but Chrome's excellent context isolation makes it quite difficult.
Also, I was hoping chrome.runtime APIs would help but it doesn't seem to be the case.
Essentially, I want to make sure only one instance can run at any given time.
Thanks!
Your background page can store global state that lets you keep track of which windows have been launched by the app.
Your app can only have one background (or event) page at a time.
If you are wanting to prevent multiple windows from launching, make sure your chrome.app.window.create call has an "id" option. That means only one window will be created with that given id.
Related
My problem is quite simple. I built an app that uses google places autocomplete to identify an address.
In order for auto complete to function, I need to clear the cache on my phone. If I do, it will work. But if I want to re-use it a second time, I will need to go through the same process again.
This doesn't seem to be happen on my laptop though.
2 questions:
Why does it do that?
Is there something than can be done to address this problem? (users will definitely bother with clearing their cache every time they want to use the app)
I haven't left any code, as I am not sure it has to do with the actual code but I am happy to share whatever you want to see.
Just in case, I am using django (python framework) if that helps, and Chrome as my browser.
I am trying to figure out a way to do an internet connectivity check for an AIR for iOS app. Previously, I was using (against my better judgement) a URLMonitor that checked Google once every 30 seconds. I did not like putting that load onto Google and neither did they; this morning, our network got flagged as a possible DDoS attacker simply from testing the app. So I had to disable this type of check and move on.
I have thought about using the NetworkInfo ANE from Adobe, but that presents its own issues in determining internet connectivity. The only way I can think of doing it is to check for interfaces "en0" and "pdpxx" (which correspond to WiFi and Cellular interfaces, respectively) and check their IPs to ensure they are not in the 192.168.x.x, 10.10.x.x, or 127.0.x.x ranges. However, I am not entirely sure those are the only static router/localhost IPs out there and there is always the possibility that the network interface names will change in the future, which would render this monitor useless. There is also the issue of IPv6 possibly throwing a wrench into this method as well.
Is there another way to check if the user is connected to the internet? I've searched multiple times and it seems that these are the only two ways to check. If that is the case, what is the best way to check?
I'm surprised that you got flagged as a DDoS attacker, are you sure that's what happened?
In any case, if your not happy with putting the load onto someone else's server, then make your own server, just a basic setup that you use with the URLMonitor. You don't have to use google's url with the URLMonitor, you can pass it another URLRequest, which could point to your own server.
monitor = new URLMonitor(new URLRequest("http://www.you-own-server.com"));
This might also be useful if you decide that you want to pass more data between the app and the server. It's your server, so can do what you want with it.
I don't think there's any other way to check if the user is connected to the internet. To be honest, I don't see why there would be. Checking for the users interfaces/wan0 etc... probably would be possible, but you'd need another program, maybe a simple python or c++ program, that Air could use to check these things, but that sounds like the long way round.
I'm developing a Chrome App (as a packaged app/extension) which purpose is to act as the base platform for several fullscreen apps to be build on top of. Chrome will be running on Ubuntu Linux.
And no trouble so far. But then I was told, that an intended app it is to be the platform for requires the source code to be updated with very short notice, as it probably is to be deployed for large scale use before the system has been tested through (even though it's a bad idea to deploy software that's not completely stable, but we're on a tight schedule). The problem is, that the "a few hours" interval for the autoupdating mechanism just isn't good enough.
So I somehow need to have the updating interval changed. I know this can be done with the --extensions-update-frequency command line switch, but as apps cannot access the command line (for obvious security reasons), and I'd prefer that the intended background page was to handle all the "administration", I don't think that switch is possible to use.
Is it somehow possible to update at a higher frequency? Or at times when it's ordered to?
There is now a method chrome.runtime.requestUpdateCheck():
Requests an update check for this app/extension.
It will return a status, which can be either "no_update", "update_available" or "throttled".
Unfortunately, the docs do not specify the limits for frequency that will trigger "throttled".
Your best option will be to have the extension manually check with your servers for an updated version. If there is an updated version show the user a desktop notification to manually update.
Potentially you could write a NPAPI plugin to modify the update frequency.
This may cause issues with CSP but you can try to live load JavaScript from your server that executes in the extension. In this case to "update" your extension you would simply update the JS hosted on your servers and the extension would automatically start using it on next load.
I am trying to provide my users with the option to have my application launch automatically and complete a task at a certain time every week.
I can make my application launch at log in using NativeApplication.nativeApplication.startAtLogin=true but I then want to detect if the time is the time they selected and if it isn't then run the application in the background until the time does match or the user shuts down their computer.
Does anyone know of a way to do this? On Adobe's webpage comparing Flex web apps and desktop apps it implied to me that applications could be run in the background but I'm struggling to find anything.
You can close the initial native window without killing the process
NativeApplication.nativeApplication.autoExit = false;
NativeWindow(this.stage.nativeWindow).close();
OR
You can close the initial native window and create a new window that acts as a desktop widget without appearing in the taskbar with either the UTILITY or LIGHTWEIGHT window type.
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/air/reference/html/flash/display/NativeWindowInitOptions.html#type
Either you keep the process running which times when the next 'job' should be ran, or you can set a system cron job (or something similar) which is specific to the OS. You'll want to use the NativeWindow option of 'LIGHTWEIGHT' so that your application doesn't show up to the user.
Personally, for these kinds of processes, I don't even try to use Air since it isn't really made for this kind of stuff. It's meant to be used for UI based apps and not process based. Use Java or C# instead.
I was wondering, how would you go about writing an application that basically houses other applications inside of it?
The reason I ask is that I'd love to build an app that 'conquers' my current explosion of open windows. I've used virtual window managers before and they're nice and all, but I could do so many things with an app like I mention.
Alternatively does anyone know of an easy to use/intuitive application for confining windows to 'regions' of your screen? Something like GridMove, but more intuitive and less flakey?
You could create a window, then you could enumerate all Windows that have the style WS_OVERLAPPEDWINDOW, select the ones belonging to the application you want to house, then call SetParent on the window, setting the parent to the window you created. You could also use FindWindow to find a window by its title.
All the windows inside the house can never leave the house window's boundaries, but they still follow all the same rules. You can still click-and-drag windows etc.
The problem here is that if the application inside the house creates another window, its parent will most likely be the desktop window, not the house window.
I think what you are describing is generally called a Window Manager. The Windows shell is itself a (poor) example of a window manager. You might want to investigate some alternatives. I know there has been some success in getting KDE ported to Windows, so you might want to look at the current state of that project.
Microsoft also provides a PowerToy (IIRC) that gives you virtual desktop support, but it's really bad. Have you considered just getting a second monitor (and perhaps a utility such as MultiMon Taskbar to get a second task bar on the other monitor)?
Here is code that uses FindWindow / SetParent to create a tabbed view combining different applications Jedi Window Dock
I also wrote an application (not free, not open source) that takes this idea a bit further called WindowTabs.
The only caution I would give you is that not all applications like being parented. If your writing .NET, there are some "Gotcha's" there (which is why WindowTabs doesn't use parenting).
Also, in general, once you do a SetParent, you are joining the threads at a Win32 level meaning that if one hangs, all of them are toast.
Multiple Document Interfaces could help you out.
Despite the multiple down votes, I stand by this answer because the OP never stated the source of the "explosion of windows." I've seen business apps that open several windows at a time (or users that would open several instances "to save time") where MDI would've been a nice feature for them.
If the OP is a power user who has a need for another window manager because he runs many apps at once, then this really doesn't apply. It also isn't the problem I'd be addressing -- it would be finding a way to have fewer windows.
In general, there's always a VM.
It may be overkill or it may not work depending on the specifics of what you're trying to do. But VMWare will let you copy/paste files and text between your VM and local machine, so it's not that far off of being a true window manager. The system requirements aren't even that outrageous, considering how much memory iTunes + a typical browser eat up.