On Jun 11, 10:11 am, Anthony Buck <r...@arbia.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
> I was just wondering if you could confirm a couple of things for
> me. I think that the framework has great potential but there are a
> couple of items which have always ended up causing issues with
> previous attempts at similar setups; size, completeness and ease of
> distribution being the main contenders.
> - Am I correct in thinking that apps developed are distributed as
> such: a platform dependent executable which includes application code,
> a ruby distribution, a selection of gems and a copy of webkit?
Yes. Ruby's statically compiled. WebKit is bundled, unless the
platform already has it (like OSX). Gems are bundled.
> - Once a deployed application is downloaded by an end user is there
> any _requirement_ for the system to go back online to retrieve
> additional components (gems etc?)
No
> - Are there any pre-requisites in the form of libraries / components
> which are required by the system to be available on the end users
> machine?
No.
> - What is the approximate minimum size for a distributed app
> (obviously ignoring application specific code)
Without WebKit, about 10mb. With, about 54mb.
> - Do the included webkit implementations expose css3 to hardware acceleration?
It depends on the platform implementation of WebKit. It does on OSX.
> Much appreciate the help!
> Roja
