mifoki.blogg.se

1. #Electron set icon macbook how to#
2. #Electron set icon macbook install#
3. #Electron set icon macbook code#
4. #Electron set icon macbook mac#

I didn't want to mix it with my normal account I use daily.Ģ. Create an account: Apple Developer Program I used a dedicated email address for the developer account.

#Electron set icon macbook install#

Simple: your users won't be able to install your app.

#Electron set icon macbook mac#

Why do you need to sign and notarize your Mac App? The tutorials and examples are mostly outdated (mostly 2019). I was wrong :) At the end it was the most complicated, painful part of the process.

#Electron set icon macbook code#

I thought code signing and notarization will be fairly easy to do. I started to build a desktop app using Electron for my task automation project called Rocketride

#Electron set icon macbook how to#

My proposal in my last comment would solve this problem.MacOS: How to code sign and notarize an electron app in 2022? June 4, 2022 People don't want to do that it defeats a lot of the purpose.

Building a "first-class" Mac app (a dock icon, hooks into system APIs, etc.) that uses Safari's web view right now would probably mean opening XCode and writing quite a bit of actual Swift as a wrapper around the web UI. I think it has more to do with being able to build and ship copies for all systems through a single channel. > but by using Chromium everywhere, developers don't have to deal with cross-browser issues It has to be distinguished from the actual merits of the tech. But this isn't an indictment of the technology if anything, it's a complement. The rest has mostly to do with the initial load-time of that 1-2MB script, rather than the runtime of the actual JS code.Ģ) As with any technology that lowers the barriers to making things, there's been a dilution of less-skilled developers putting things out into the world, decreasing the overall perceived quality of the space. 90% of this is due to ads and analytics, which couldn't care less about their impact on page performance. By default the web view runs in a separate thread from the "main" process, and you can spin up workers or even split your UI into separate web views so each panel gets its own thread.ġ) Web sites have become much slower than they need to be with the increase in JavaScript dependencies. Most of the grunt-work, including recalculating layout, is implemented in C++ as part of the browser.Ģ) Layout calculation can be slow-ish in extreme cases, but that's a direct tradeoff for the benefit of using the world's most advanced UI layout system, which provides real value.ģ) Under normal circumstances an entire web page runs in a single thread, which can be a problem when the occasional expensive operation blocks other ones, but Electron gives you several options for moving expensive operations to separate threads. That's what I'm trying to get to the heart of here:ġ) JavaScript is slower than C++, but it's very rare that enough actual work is being done in JavaScript for it to become a bottleneck (on the UI side), even in complex web-apps. People who aren't web developers love to repeat this mantra, but it's simply not true.

Secondly: The web itself is not fundamentally slow. It's just that the former has a privileged place in the OS, and is a dynamically-linked dependency instead of a statically-linked one (using those terms loosely). I would bet money that Gnome + your GTK app is not meaningfully lighter-weight than Chrome + an Electron app. If that engine was fast and light on resources, the complaint wouldn't exist.įirstly: in that case you'd have to compare it to the weight of the entire desktop environment. > they're fundamentally referring to the underlying engine that makes those apps slow.

Web-based desktop apps would be no larger than native ones, and depending on how the OS handles them they could be roughly as performant. This would not only allow people to use desktop safari for their "electron apps" if they want to, it would avoid one of today's major problems which is shipping a whole copy of the browser with each app. They could even let you pick your own, the same way you can pick your default browser now. Then they can use whatever browser internals they want when it comes to launching those web apps. What I'd like to see, personally, is for the three major desktop OSes to agree on a "desktop WebView" standard. Although, I do question whether a third-party browser even has access to the APIs that make Safari's efficiency what it is. If you're complaining about the former, I think that's more fair. I think that when most people complain about "electron apps", what they're complaining about is the latter. The weight of Chrome as a browser and the more general concept of using the web as a desktop app platform are two different things.