i was poking in the Youtube-app for the Nintendo Switch and saw that it's the cobalt browser pointing to youtube.com/tv. Since the switch is lacking a (good) browser*, i thought that it may be possible to compile a/the browser for the Nintendo switch myself. Learning about the topic showed me that i don't know nearly enough to do this myself and i also have no idea where to get some help with this.
Switch apps are compiled with the nx_sdk, which is reserved for "approved" developers and under an NDA, so its not exactly easy to try to copy what Youtube did. We do have a toolchain to compile homebrew and it features a lot of the same things of the official SDK but it's still just for hombrews.
In my despair i tried to modify the Youtube-app to just use a different domain than youtube.com, which works but there are other checks in place that i cant really solve with my limited assembly knowledge.
So i my question(s) is/are: Is there a way to get cobalt to the switch as homebrew? If yes, where can i start and what do i need? Is the youtube-app (switch) source code available somewhere (minus the switch SDK)? What else could lead me to an acceptable solution of having a/the browser on the Nintendo Switch?
* Officially the switch has no browser, however there is a very limited Netscape browser for situations like wifi-captive portals or triggered by ingame TOS, health notices or video playback. The browser can be run by homebrew any time but like said above, it lacks functionality that other browsers all have.
The Cobalt source is available from https://cobalt.googlesource.com/, but it won't include the Switch port code. You could try implementing your own Switch port, but it is not going to be trivial.
More importantly, though, Cobalt is not a general-purpose browser. It is not based off of WebKit, and it only implements a greatly reduced subset of web specifications. Websites will not work out of the box on Cobalt, so it's not a promising endeavor.
Cobalt is designed to run single-page web apps that target Cobalt directly. By making many simplifying assumptions, it can be more embedded-friendly.
Related
i'm facing a challenge of rebrushing and updating an almost 10-years old Screenweaver project, and looking for a decent modern swf-exe convertor. Don't have much time to evaluate all the options, therefore i'd like to hear responses with actual working experience with such a tool.
Since WinAPI interaction is a must, the default projector is not an option.
Similar questions (no concrete answers there)
Package SWF into an EXE or APP
Create an EXE from a SWF using Flex 3 without requiring AIR?
Many thanks
UPD: 300 bounty for anyone who can help me with a practical answer.
I've been experimenting with different SWF projectors for a long time now, and so far I think I've tried most if not all of them. I've explained in more detail the best projectors I have used below.
MDM Zinc
http://www.multidmedia.com/software/zinc/
I remember back in when I had Vista that MDM had quite a few bugs running under that OS. It took a while for them to fix those bugs - the bugs didn't stop it from running, but really interfered with the functioning of some methods in the program. For this reason, I decided not to continue testing Zinc and moved on to another projector. Saying that though, I'm certain they have fixed those bugs now.
The program itself has a nice intuitive interface, and allows you create screensaver as well as EXEs (which is obviously good for you).
The product is pricey - currently at $349.99, so this put me off.
You can also generate Mac and Linux projectors which is very attractive, but requires an additional license for each which does cost a lot of money.
SWF Studio
http://www.northcode.com/
This was one of the projectors I really enjoyed working with. It's fully featured, has great community support and the developers are always on hand to help. The projectors it generates are compatible with all Windows operating systems, and I've never had any problems with bugs on this one.
Northcode also offer a student license for SWF Studio for $49. I nearly purchased a license with these guys but the only reason why I didn't was because I found another projector which was better for my scenario which I will come onto in a moment.
I can tell you that one of the reasons why I didn't use this projector (it does sound trivial) is because it had a large file size. SWF Studio allows you to select what size projector you want in terms of filesize - with options like tiny and compact I think but the smaller file types might have dependencies with other files in the directory. This means that you would have to bundle your application with some folders and additional files as well as the EXE itself.
SWF Studio also has the option to create screensavers.
mProjector
http://www.screentime.com/software/flash-projector
mProjector has gone up a version (from 3 to 4) since I last used it, so it may incorporate a lot more features in this version. I remember that the product is very good with transparency, and showcases some 'screen buddies' which use transparency to virtually walk about your screen. The reason why I didn't use this projector is because it didn't have as many Actionscript functions as I would have liked, but I believe it has a lot more nowadays. In your project this wouldn't be so much of a problem because you want a screensaver.
It is reasonably priced at $399 for both Windows and Mac compatibility, but you can buy just Windows or Mac if you wish for a cheaper price.
Janus Flash
I was going to explain this product in more detail but I have now realised that the website no longer exists! Janus is the projector I liked the most and ended up using because of the sheer amount of features available for use in your code.
Like all the projectors I have mentioned above, each one adds functionality to flash which you don't usually get with an SWF. Each product includes pre-built actionscript methods which can interface with the operating system itself to do things you can't do in the Flash sandbox. For example, each one of these projectors allows you to manipulate files (add, edit, delete e.t.c.) on the computer. Janus had the most methods available out of all the projectors I tried. This is partially because Janus used the .NET framework (which meant that .NET 2.0 was required on the system you were executing the projector on).
Also like MDM Zinc, this product allowed you to create applications for the Mac too. I managed to get a cheaper price too when I contacted them directly explaining that I was a student. I recently contacted Janus-Flash to ask about the future of the product, and they said that they may re-release Janus in the future, but for now it's off the market.
Some other products I have used which are worth a mention but I haven't explained in detail: SWFKit, Jugglor, F-IN-BOX (more developer releated as it required cutting code).
A quick search brings up these which might be worth a look: Flash2Me, Flash EXE Builder and SWF to Screensaver.
For your project I think the best option would be SWF Studio. It has lots of nice scripting features you can use to interface with the OS, and is nicely priced too at $299 for a full license.
I hope this helps in your decision for what projector to use, and will save you from trying out many different projectors like I did over several months!
We support a lot of Win32 functionality directly in our core API so chances are you may not even have to make a direct API call, but if you do...
SWF Studio has an advanced Plugin API that allows you to write custom plugins in C++, C# or VB.NET so you can call win32 or .NET functions. We created our own ummanaged to managed code shim so you can write a native .NET plugin and call it from SWF Studio just as easily as you can write a Win32 plugin.
There's no difference between how you call a SWF Studio function in AS2 or AS3. We have maintained 100% backward compatibility in our API. Whether you're using AS2 or AS3, your calls will just work. And they'll continue to work.
However, the place we really shine is support. I created SWF Studio and I'm still in the forums EVERY day answering questions and fixing bugs.
My experience here is from a year ago.
Having worked with mProjector I can tell you that the AS3 API is quite robust and easy to use. I was able to wrap a large swf-based project using external assets up into an EXE without a lot of problems. The UI for mProjector's project gui leaves something to be desired, but the actual hooks to the file system were easy to use.
The difficulty is that not all of it is documented. In fact there were as of a year ago a lot of undocumented packages.
My only real problem with mprojector was that in AS3 there wasn't any support for SharedObjects. Someone in their community worked around this and made their solution available. It does of course make use of storing a file on the local system.
This overall compared favorably against Zinc which was extraordinarily complex, slow to compile, and worse than having no documentation all the docs I needed were flat-out wrong.
I ruled out Jugglor almost immediately. It never successfuly compiled anything.
Since this is an old project you're talking about, and written in AS2, I can't speak to that side of it. I can say however that programs like Zinc and mProjector have been around a lot longer than AS3 has, and that the same hooks that are available in AS3 seemed to be available in AS2 also. The possibility exists that there may be more such hooks in AS2 since it's been supported for longer, but I cannot vouch for this at all.
I have used all of these applications, but most of all I liked theFlajector - a program that converts flash movies (swf) to exe files. You can include a flash player in generated applications and they will use it. In other words, the applications will work even if no flash player is installed. Also, Flajector can create windowless applications from flash movies. You can extend your applications using plugins. Using standard classes you can work with files and more.
I have been following the usage of JavaScript for the past few years, and with the release of extremely fast scripting engines (V8, SquirrelFish Extrene, TraceMonkey, etc.) the possibilities of JavaScript have increased dramatically. However, the usage share of Internet Explorer coupled with it's total lack of support for recent standards makes me want to drop a bomb on Microsoft's HQ, as it creates a huge amount of problems for any website.
The game will need to be pretty dynamic client-side, with animations and other eye-candy things, but not a full-blown game like those that run directly in the OS using DirectX or OpenGL. However, this might be a little stretch for JavaScript and will certainly feel extremely slow in Internet Explorer (given that the current IE engine can be hundreds of times slower than SFX; gotta see what IE9 will bring), would it be better to just do the whole thing in Flash? I know this means requiring the plug-in AND I have no experience whatsoever with Flash (other than browsing YouTube :P). It also means I can't just output directly from PHP, I would have to use XML or some other format to pass data to it (JSON is directly integrated in JS and PHP can deal with it easily).
Another idea would be to provide an alternative interface just for IE, though I don't know how (ActiveX maybe? or with Flash, then why not just provide it to all browsers) or totally not supporting it and requiring the use of other browsers, although this is plain stupid from a business perspective.
So here am I, wondering what approach to take and thus asking for your advice. How should I build the client-side? AJAX in all browsers, Flash in all browsers or a mix (AJAX for "modern" browsers and something else for the "grandpa": IE).
I recommend a plug-in platform (Flash, Silverlight, or Java) over AJAX. Having a clean layer of abstraction between your game and the client's browser is a big advantage. In any non-trivial AJAX game look forward to endless corner-cases where browsers differ in performance or implementation.
Personally, I think Flash is easy to learn if you are coming from AJAX experience. Flash is currently the most widely installed and proven plug-in for browser games. However, Silverlight and Java are both building momentum. Also, the Unity engine has become a popular choice for commercial browser games.
I think you shouldn't leave Java out of the equation. It's a powerful, fast language, and with Java applets, you can do almost anything. If you want hardware-accelerated graphics via OpenGL, JOGL can do it, even in an applet.
On the other hand, it might not be right for you. But at this early stage, I think you should evaluate all of your options, and since you have no experience with Flash but sound like you've got a bit of programming experience, you might feel more at-home with Java.
I believe the current answer is Flash game.
Alternatives:
Java Applet: getting less and less common those days and it is not commonly installed as a plugin on many computers.
SilverLight: too new and might vary and change in time. not commonly installed on many computers and it's Microsoft (whom tends to change technology every 2 years ...)
JavaScript / AJAX: Still a new kid on the block, it's on the rise it is true with many nice features, but still lack of good cross browser for IE even IE8, can not play sounds internally, still slower than the others, and you don't know where will it evolves.
Eventually probably the best solution for now is Flash development:
Cross platform. Works fast. Long time already alive and have a lot of support.
I hope this answer will change in the next year. Happy Peasach.
Check out Jmonkey. The "plugin" loads if you have Java on your machine. Once it's cached, the next time the visitor goes to the page, it your game loads very quick. Check out their website for demos and see what I mean: http://www.jmonkeyengine.com/
Oh, I forgot to say, it's a 3D scenegraph Java engine. I just tried it again, and it loaded in linux. Looks they've put in some good work.
Don't do it with javascript in the browser. And Flash really can be a pain just because it's closed source and you don't know if you've made a mistake or found a bug - speaking from experience. I'd never want to make another Flash game again.
How about using RaphaelJs , it is a Javascript library that make dinamyc images using SVG, and for IE, it try to make those images using the IE alternative: VML. Im using it on my own WebGame, but i dont really make complex graphics in it. The most complex thing done on RapahelJs was a heath map (20 * 20 tiles ) with a dinamyc opacity slider. An it work with jquery without any problem or configuration!
Suppose I'm writing a 2d tile based MMORPG.
Furthermore suppose I hate flash.
Lastly, suppose I only need my code to run in the latest safari, latest firefox, and latest chrome.
What are the limits to what I can and can't do? (Are there examples of good game engines that only require a recent web browser)?
Look into HTML5 Canvas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_element
The latest versions of the browsers you mention already support it.
Check out the Unity3D engine: http://www.unity3d.com
Cross-browser, cross-platform, although your users would have to download the unity browser plugin...
There's also the Raphaël javascript library...it does a very nice job of abstracting a lot of the heavy lifting you'd have to do otherwise! The memory footprint seems decently light as well (from my small-scale playing around with it anyway).
For something that works for the user, OOBE (without add-ins etc); Javascript is probably the only unified functionality that exists between all browsers.
The browser is surprisingly quite capable (at least Chrome is), this is something that Google Chrome is attempting to promote (see http://www.chromeexperiments.com/). Notice some however, that experiments are often laggy or unworkable in other web browsers.
As for a list of things that are and aren't capable; that would take a fair while to compile.
In regards specifically to a 2D tile based game, I wouldn't say it isn't possible, but it may be quite difficult to create. As mentioned before, most browsers (apart from the stand-out; Google Chrome), suffer from limited resources. Therefore resources wise, it may be difficult to implement and would defiantly require a lot of requirement fore planning.
Java applets are also possible...
You could also move to 3D. While it does require a plug-in (although is being integrated into Chrome), the results are undeniable.
"O3D is an open-source web API for creating rich, interactive 3D applications in the browser." http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/. The video is quite amazing actually -- especially the live map editing (e.g. removing sprites).
Does anyone know of any tools out there that will let me run and debug a VXML application visually? There are a ton of VXML development tools, but they all require you to build your application within them.
I have an existing application that uses JSPs to generate VXML, and I'm looking for a way to navigate through and debug the rendered VXML in much the same way that Firebug allows one to do this with HTML. I have some proxy-like tools that let me inspect the rendered code as it is sent to the VXML browser, but there's a ton of JS, which makes traversing the code by hand rather difficult.
Has anyone worked with a product that allows for this?
Thanks!
IVR Avenger
There is JigSaw Test suite - has free trial license and reasonably priced.
There is IBM's debugger - part of WebSphere Voice Toolkit.
Many other products have debuggers - a very good summary is here
Disclaimer: I am the development manager for Voiyager (www.voiyager.com), a VoiceXML testing tool. It doesn't meet your criteria nor do I believe it is the type of tool you want, but I thought it was worth mentioning it.
As far as I know, there isn't such a test tool for VoiceXML. In fact there are very few VoiceXML tools on the market and hardly any of them test or analysis. The vendors that created development tools, have all been acquired by other companies. Some of them offered did offer various forms of debugging that were specific to their tool set or stayed at the Dialog (caller input) level. From your question, I'm assuming you need much lower level debugging capabilities.
I think the alternative paths are minimal and somewhat difficult. I believe your primary goal is to debug or rewrite an existing application, but you haven't provided any specific challenges beyond the JavaScript. Some thoughts or approaches that may help:
Isolate the JavaScript and place the code into a unit test harness. That will go a long way to understanding the logic of the application. Any encapsulation of the JavaScript you perform will probably go a long way towards better code maintainability.
Attempt to run the VoiceXML through a translation layer to HTML so you could use FireBug. The largest challenge would involve caller input (ie processing the SRGS grammars). You could probably cheat this by just having the form accept a JSON string the populates the field values. There are tools on the market to test grammars. Depending on the nature of your problems, you could take a simple and light approach and attempt this over just the trouble areas.
Plumb the application with a lot of logging. This can be done through the VoiceXML LOG element, or push the variable space back to the server. By adding intermediate forms, you may be able to provide a dump from each via the VoiceXML Data element.
See if your application will run in one of the open source VoiceXML browsers (not sure of the state of the open source browsers as we've built and bought for our various product lines). If you can get it mostly working, you can use the development debugger to provide some ability to step through the logic. However, it is probably one of the more difficult paths as you'll really need to understand the browser to know when and where to stick your breakpoints and to figure out how to expose the data you want.
Good luck on the challenge. If you find another approach, I would be interested in seeing it posted.
An alternative debug env is to use something like Asterisk with a voicexml browser plugin like the one from http://www.voiceglue.org/ or for a limited licence, i6net.
You can keep all the pieces separate(dynamic html and vxml application in php/jsp/j2ee/, tts processing, and optional asr processing as separate virtual machines with something like virtualbox. If the logic can be kept the same, then it is just a matter of changing the UI based on the channel.
A softphone is all you need to call a minimal asterisk machine, which has the voicexml browser with the url of the vxml in the call plan.
I just used Zend Framework as php is used in this environment, and changed view suffixes(phtml vs vxml) based on the user-agent string.
Flite for tts is fine for debugging, and when your app is ready you can either record phrases, and there was a page on the ubuntu forums with directions for how to increase flite quality with some additional sound files.
Do you have tried Eclipse VTP or InVision Studio?
Eclipse VTP
This is Eclipse plugin. But I feel that it is user-unfriendly a little (of Japanese viewpoint).
InVision Studio *Required create user account*
This is Convergys's IVR tool. It has to edit standard VXML mode. (Unfortunately, It's not exact matching.)
For just debugging vxml, I use Nuance Cafe's VoiceXML checker. It doesn't give you a visual tree or anything, but it's pretty good at spotting syntax errors and is free. I think they might also have more advanced debugging tools if you look into it, but I haven't had the need. (Note: I have no association with them)
http://cafe.bevocal.com/tools/vxmlchecker/vxmlchecker.jsp
I'm looking for the same problem that most of the links are down. I found a document where they propose an open source solution, which works as a plugin for Asterisk (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228873959_Open_Source_VoiceXML_Interpreter_over_Asterisk_for_Use_in_IVR_Applications) and is available at https://sourceforge.net/projects/voxy/
I would like to know if there are current options to create a VXML structure graphically, like the next image.
We provide a web application with a frontend completely developed in Adobe Flash. When we chose Flash 6 years ago, we did so for its large number of features for user interaction, like dragging stuff, opening and closing menus, tree navigation elements, popup dialogs etc.
Today it's obvious that AJAX/JS offers roughly the same possibilities and because of the number of frameworks that are readily available, it's very feasible to implement them.
Is there a technical reason one should choose either technology over the other? By "technical", I mean performance, security, portability/compatibility and the like. I don't mean aspects such as the very non-programmer way development is done in Flash or whether it makes sense to switch an app from one to the other.
As I just explained in another question, it seems to me that JS is way ahead in terms of market share and I'm wondering whether we are missing some important point if we stick to Flash.
In addition to what others have said, Flash is constrained in the "rectangle" and cannot be added to a normal html page in an un-obtrusive manner.
#Gulzar I think when more browsers will support the video tag like mozilla 3.1 does we'll see even more adoption of ajax/js over flash.
Adobe Actionscript is a statically typed language, Javascript is dynamically typed. Depending on your point of view, this may be a good thing or a bad thing.
With Javascript/HTML/CSS you're going to be heading into cross-browser compatibility hell, especially if you want to support older browsers. This can be mitigated by the libraries that are available, but it's still a big headache. With Flash, you write the code once and it just works in all browsers.
Even with the libraries available, Flash user controls are simply more advanced than anything you can find in the world of Javascript/HTML. In Javascript, you are not going to find anything that comes close to the simplicity and power of a databound user control that Flash provides.
I don't see how Javascript has more of a "market share" than Flash. Pretty much anyone with a web browser has a Flash plugin installed. I'd be curious to know how many people disable Javascript but have a Flash plugin.
Also keep in mind that you're going to be in for a huge learning curve and lots of development time if you decide to switch your technology base so you'd really better have a good business reason to do it.
This decision also has a lot to do with what your application does and who your install base is.
Edit: I see people have mentioned that the iPhone doesn't have Flash support. I would expect this to change with the install base of the iPhone - Adobe would be crazy not to support it.
Correctly designed AJAX apps are more googleable than Flash
Correctly designed AJAX apps are more easily deep linkable than Flash
AJAX doesn't require a plugin (Flash is pretty ubiquitous, so it's not really a big deal)*
AJAX isn't controlled by a single company the way Flash is
Edited to add:
* Except for the iPhone, as Abdu points out.
JS and Flash both have great presence on the web with overlapping capabilities. One area JS is still lacking is in rendering video.
Flash, used well, allows easy localization and internationalization.
Furthermore, it is much easier to use Flash in an accessible manner; you can feed screen readers the right text, instead of having them iterate over all of the possible form elements.
I think Flash should be limited to online games, videos and animation. Otherwise use html and Ajax. It's a web standard and supported by almost all devices.
AFAIK, the iPhone doesn't support Flash. That's a fast growing segment you're blocking out already. Keep it simple and efficient.
Although flash is pretty ubiquitous on desktop browsers, mobile support is very limited (flash lite? yeah, right). I get really frustrated looking up a restaurant on my phone only to find the entire site is flash based and I can't even get a phone number or address!
One benefit of Flash is that it has a few facilities to help do cross domain type operations safely, which can be helpful. Flash also has (limited) support for some hardware, which is not possible with Javascript.
Personally, I'd try to use as much Ajax as possible before turning to something like Flash. From the UI perspective, it is better in that the controls and basic authoring is a little more developed. The Sound Manager project is a good example of effectively using a small amount of Flash while keeping the remainder in Javascript.
I suspect one of the reasons javascript is becoming more popular is that it's more easy to retrofit into an existing application.
As I can't accept two answers, I'm going to merge Christ Upchurch's and 17 of 26's answers in my own post. I think, these two together pretty much sum up what I wanted to know. Thanks guys!
If you're dealing a lot with polygons, then Flash is still easier to program and debug. With AJAX there are a lot of libraries to handle polygons, but the more libraries your app uses, the slower it gets.