5 ms·

Thanks very much. By the way, currently clicking the link in a browser doesn't seem to bring up the intent chooser to open it in the Nightweb app. I'll try to f

by gw 14y ago

Thanks very much. By the way, currently clicking the link in a browser doesn't seem to bring up the intent chooser to open it in the Nightweb app. I'll try to fix that today. In the meantime, the workaround is to email or text the link to yourself, and click it from there instead. Yeah I've thought about allowing multiple users on a single device, so I'll look into that in the near future. EDIT: I fixed the issue with clicking links in browsers. I will issue version 0.0.5 with this fix because I think it's pretty important.

ge0rg 14y ago
you should define a separate namespace for users/posts, like a subdomain or path, for the app, right now the browser is confused when opening the homepage
- DoubleMalt 14y ago
  I think it deserves it's own protocol nightweb:// . Will also make it easier for th iOS port later ;)
  - ge0rg 14y ago
    Using a nightweb.net http url on the other hand would allow a read-only web access to the service, increasing conversion rates ;)
    - DoubleMalt 14y ago
      But it would undermine the "distributedness". Maybe Nightweb could serve a website on the device itself and one could use pagekite or a dynamic dns to serve it.
      - pudquick 14y ago
        There's no reason a third party couldn't host a read-only view into Nightweb, performing something similar to tor2web.org. The third party would be running their own Nightweb client, then visitors to the website would trigger content downloads on the client, rendered out as a webpage. This would provide the "public view" without sacrificing the decentralized nature.
        synctext 14y ago
        Great idea. In fact, this type of functionality is hopefuly becoming an Internet Standard: http://www.internetsociety.org/articles/moving-toward-censorship-free-internet http://www.internetsociety.org/articles/moving-toward-censor... However, Bittorrent is not up to the task, due to NAT issues. UDP NAT puncturing is not present in this stack, right? Thus how is it going through carrier-grade NATs which block all these smartphones? Disclaimer: working on a similar thing for years Tribler Mobile.
      - ge0rg 14y ago
        First, the website would only be meant for users without the app, so local hosting would not work. Second, it can only be read-only, unless you upload your private key. I think it would provide a window into the social network, kind of "Oscar is using this, join him now by downloading the app!" The implication I see is privacy of people clicking a user link, but the problem already exists now.
- gw 14y ago
  I think it's considered bad practice to define your own URI scheme for your app, though it is very common on iOS since you have no other choice. I thought using HTTP links would be nice since (a) they are much more likely to be linkified when pasted in emails and on websites, and (b) clicking them from non-Android devices will take you to the website where you can learn about it.
  - goldfeld 14y ago
    You could also have a context header on top saying something like "Join [User] on Nightweb" or "Hey, [User] is on Nightweb!" and then your website follows explaining the concept.

by gw 14y ago

ge0rg 14y ago

you should define a separate namespace for users/posts, like a subdomain or path, for the app, right now the browser is confused when opening the homepage

DoubleMalt 14y ago
I think it deserves it's own protocol nightweb:// . Will also make it easier for th iOS port later ;)
- ge0rg 14y ago
  Using a nightweb.net http url on the other hand would allow a read-only web access to the service, increasing conversion rates ;)
  - DoubleMalt 14y ago
    But it would undermine the "distributedness". Maybe Nightweb could serve a website on the device itself and one could use pagekite or a dynamic dns to serve it.
    - pudquick 14y ago
      There's no reason a third party couldn't host a read-only view into Nightweb, performing something similar to tor2web.org. The third party would be running their own Nightweb client, then visitors to the website would trigger content downloads on the client, rendered out as a webpage. This would provide the "public view" without sacrificing the decentralized nature.
      - synctext 14y ago
        Great idea. In fact, this type of functionality is hopefuly becoming an Internet Standard: http://www.internetsociety.org/articles/moving-toward-censorship-free-internet http://www.internetsociety.org/articles/moving-toward-censor... However, Bittorrent is not up to the task, due to NAT issues. UDP NAT puncturing is not present in this stack, right? Thus how is it going through carrier-grade NATs which block all these smartphones? Disclaimer: working on a similar thing for years Tribler Mobile.
    - ge0rg 14y ago
      First, the website would only be meant for users without the app, so local hosting would not work. Second, it can only be read-only, unless you upload your private key. I think it would provide a window into the social network, kind of "Oscar is using this, join him now by downloading the app!" The implication I see is privacy of people clicking a user link, but the problem already exists now.
gw 14y ago
I think it's considered bad practice to define your own URI scheme for your app, though it is very common on iOS since you have no other choice. I thought using HTTP links would be nice since (a) they are much more likely to be linkified when pasted in emails and on websites, and (b) clicking them from non-Android devices will take you to the website where you can learn about it.
- goldfeld 14y ago
  You could also have a context header on top saying something like "Join [User] on Nightweb" or "Hey, [User] is on Nightweb!" and then your website follows explaining the concept.