Using electronic or offline HTML5 for a standalone application

When searching for electronic and stand-alone HTML5, it was difficult for me to decide which one to use for the project.

Assuming that the user will need to go to a specific website to download the Electron application, and he will need to go to the same site to download the downloaded stand-alone HTML5, what are the pros and cons between using one over the other?

Some I could think of:

  • Offline HTML5 can be updated without the user knowingly updating their application by simply translating it to an online page.
  • Electron eliminates the need to code multiple browser and browser dependencies and quirks
+5
source share
1 answer

It really depends on your exact requirements. Below is a list of everything I came up with:

  • the electron supports a system of modules (i.e. require ) both mainly and during the visualization process.
  • The electron gives you access to the OS API (e.g. fs ). Without such modules, node will not work in the JS browser runtime (e.g. ip ).
  • Updating your application electronically is as simple as sending an http request. (or even better, as described here )
  • A stand-alone HTML 5 application requires a browser, and the user can simply give it IE6 .
  • the electron integrates with the native desktop environment (see dialog , power-save-blocker , shell or even app for some examples)
  • electron strengthens some HTML5 APIs such as file API
  • electronic allows you to change the default behavior of chrome. For example, you can intercept all URLs using the file scheme and change them on the fly *.

In short, if you want your application to have good built-in integration and act deterministic (i.e. does not have browser features), I suggest choosing an electron.


* electron-jade , for example, uses the API protocol to compile all files ending in .jade on the fly, without the need for preliminary compilation.

DISCLAIMER . I am an electron-jade developer.

+7
source

All Articles