Oh, I forgot to make it clear - Chrome apps/extensions can make raw TCP socket connections:

   http://blog.chromium.org/2012/11/introducing-tcp-listen-new-api-for.html

You would do it as a packaged app: http://developer.chrome.com/apps/about_apps.html  because then they're a lot more similar to native apps (they get their own windows, run offline, etc). 

But these aren't standard APIs. They're all Chrome extensions. I doubt HTML5 will support USB access anytime soon, for instance, but packaged apps do.



On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
Code that runs inside NativeClient has the same access level as JavaScript does. It's just a way to do things faster.

Distribution as a Chrome app via the Chrome store is a fine approach, as long as people understand it's just an app platform like any other. It has pros and cons that must be weighed up. For instance, Chrome for mobile doesn't really do apps, at least not at the moment. Also, you're still limited by what APIs Chrome exposes, which are a strict subset of what a real OS provides.


On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Wendell <w@grabhive.com> wrote:
Right, I'm not suggesting that we have this wallet in a web app, but rather precisely what you are talking about: using special browser features, and bundling it. I am fundamentally monoculture-opposed, but given Chrome's present installed base, that initial target makes sense to me, provided that we could have a one-click installation (as per normal, via the Chrome Store).

Chrome also has this "Native Client" plug-in: I know next to nothing about it, and this goes off the rails of the Subject, but perhaps an SPV implementation there could be a solution to the concerns you expressed?

-wendell

grabhive.com | twitter.com/grabhive | gpg: 6C0C9411

On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:

> JavaScript is turing complete so of course it can be done. The real question you're asking is, can it be done in a web app? I think the answer is I think "no" because web apps aren't allowed to make raw TCP socket connections.
>
> Now there may be a way around that by using browser-specific things like extensions or "installable apps" which give your code greater access permissions. This approach means you essentially use Chrome as your app platform instead of a JVM, the assumption presumably being that more users have Chrome than a JVM. The flip side is that users who don't would probably balk at the idea of installing an entire browser in order to run a wallet app, whereas a JVM can be bundled and the resulting app acts like any other. I don't know of a convenient way to "statically link" Chrome into a regular-looking application.
>
> I personally wouldn't find such a design compelling. Whilst Java isn't exactly a great language, JavaScript is significantly worse in virtually all aspects. I don't understand why anyone would want to use JavaScript outside the browser - you get less safety, less performance, fewer features, less mature tools and so on. If the end result is an installable app like any other, all you did is cripple yourself vs the competition that's using languages/platforms designed for it.