[concept] Browser extension as alternative to Electron app #6979

New issue

Closed

opened 2021-08-28 12:00:46 +02:00 by ghost · 1 comment

ghost commented

2021-08-28 12:00:46 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Opinion: Browser use seems more intuitive and supports a lot of "standard" features out of the box, like

tabs
find on page (ctrl+f)
many more

Describe the solution you'd like

I'd like to know, what do you think about replacing/extending current LBRY-Desktop Electron app with something like this .. a background service + browser extension client?

Something similar IPFS Team has done. They have

Electron app as LBRY
Plus, background service & browser extension which consumes the service

Questions

Could it be possible with LBRY?
What do you think about such idea? Would you merge it?

Extra Context
Another benefit of that approach is better interoperability (?), user can run IPFS on BSD, because

the CLI tool is ported
Browser extension is just a browser extension it needs browser and "should work"

This is just a concept, so I'd like to know your opinion.

**Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** Opinion: Browser use seems more intuitive and supports a lot of "standard" features out of the box, like 1. tabs 2. find on page (`ctrl+f`) 3. many more **Describe the solution you'd like** I'd like to know, what do you think about replacing/extending current LBRY-Desktop Electron app with something like this .. a background service + browser extension client? Something similar IPFS Team has done. They have 1. [Electron app](https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs-desktop) as LBRY 2. Plus, [background service](http://docs.ipfs.io.ipns.localhost:8080/how-to/command-line-quick-start/#take-your-node-online) & [browser extension](https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs-companion) which consumes the service Questions 1. Could it be possible with LBRY? 2. What do you think about such idea? Would you merge it? **Extra Context** Another benefit of that approach is better interoperability (?), user can run IPFS on BSD, because 1. the CLI tool is ported 2. Browser extension is just a browser extension it needs browser and "should work" This is just a concept, so I'd like to know your opinion.

tzarebczan commented

2021-08-28 15:15:02 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Thanks for the suggestion but don't think we'll be doing this anytime soon.