Slashdot Mirror

Sorry to say, using HTML for something other than displaying information still feels like... you're trying to make an application out of a word document. Think about it, we're desperately trying to move away from the desktop but the framework we're using is primarily a framework for designing text and then clobber on tons of scripting to get it to do something else. Sure, we can do fancy stuff with it, but there's no consistency and everyone reinvents the wheel every time there's a need for something you'd take for granted in a desktop app that simply doesn't exist in pure HTML. Some might say that's the beauty of it, I call it a god damn mess that I've been fighting with for the past 10 years. If something like unprivileged XUL would have caught on, we could have had some interesting apps (links work in Firefox only) today. Sadly, we're still trying to make desktop applications out of documents, and I don't see HTML5 changing that. Granted, that we can run our applications distributed, centralized with a backend database and zero install, still make it an ideal platform to work with - but it doesn't change the fact that the markup language we're using is a hack of a tool. And don't get me started on "AJAX"...

... if you don't want it to look like a web page, why the hell not build it in XUL?
http://www.faser.net/mab/chrome/content/mab.xul

I mean, you *are* using XULrunner...

Songbird sure doesn't look like a "web page"

What I would love to see is a standard *real* GUI for the web that is non-language dependent (i.e. whatever scripting language you prefer you can use). I'd even use something like Jython with newer/better GUI libraries. But we really need something written from the ground up with GUI in mind.

Why do I have to browse the web on something that wants to be an applications platform...

Apparently someone's never heard of XUL...

I agree with your assessment about IE and availability, but I still would have thought there would be a few geek-focussed sites that might have cropped up with rich UIs in XUL. I mean there is a reasonably large Firefox install base now, and I'd have thought that for some sites, that would make writing the UI worthwhile. Maybe it's harder to write XUL than I think.

The only detail I'd nitpick is that the installation bit only affects certain classes of application. I'm not sure what makes an app require an installation and others not, but the Mozilla Amazon Browser seems quite slick and doesn't require installation (at least not in my Camino browser).

-Peter

SongBird just goes to show what XUL can really do. Most people shun it with a, "Coding serious applications in JavaScript? Yeah, right." But with the XPCOM Standard Library as a foundation, the XUL platform is really a great way to build applications. (There's a really cool application here that shows off XUL's abilities.)

XULRunner is still a problem, though. It's not clear to most programmers that XUL applications can function just as well standing alone as in a browser. Songbird is a great start, but does anyone know if there's a list of existing XULRunner applications? If such a list existed, it would be a lot easier to show people what XUL can do just by pointing them to a single URL.

XUL is very good RAD tool. Much.. much much better than HTML.

I would classify XUL as a good GUI development tool. It's rapidity is quickly lost if one delves into any XPCOM backends.

However, for simple, client side, frontend GUI operations, XUL is a very, very useful tool. It gives you the ability of DHTML in a way that isn't a hack.

Here's a good example of XUL's layout capabilities. IN terms of pure layout, there not really that much here that is different from HTML. However when you get dynamic, XUL really shines. People go on about AJAX, but XUL offers a huge amount of potential.

Personally, I feels XUL's only achilles heel is javascript. That language needs a serious overhawl if anyone is to be able to use it without all that hassle.

As a GUI application development tool, I would expect XUL and XAML to replace older methods such as GTK and *shudder* Windows "Visual" code. It's faster, cleaner, makes more sense, and you don't need 300 lines of code plus libraries to draw a hello world window.

Ring Ring: i want extensions for my browser, not a cross-platform development platform - I'd use XUL for that

You lose:
* All the accessibility mechanisms that OS GUI frameworks have. Everyone loves GMail, but navigating around it without a mouse is a real pain. No hotkeys, and an unpredictable tab order.
* Proper control of the layout of your UI.
* A whole lot of performance.

Your lose list is way off. On all three points you're either completely wrong or the blame is misguided towards the technology instead of the implementation.

Let's start with "All the accessibility mechanisms ... navigating around it without a mouse is a real pain. No hotkeys, and an unpredictable tab order". That has nothing to do with Web 2.0 concepts and it is wrong. GMail has hotkeys. You can put as much accessibility mechanisms as you want. Web 2.0 does not impose limits.

Ok, so let's move on to "Proper control of the layout of your UI.". Oh man, you obviously don't know what you're talking about and it looks like the moderators who gave you points are just as clueless. Proper layout control is done with style sheets. Style sheets can be used to control the layout of a web page when the browser supports it. It has nohting to do with the Web 2.0 concepts. Slashdot uses CSS now (thank god) and it isn't a Web 2.0 site. GMail uses style sheets and it is a Web 2.0 app.

Finally, the point that motivated me to respond. "A whole lot of performance." That is just nonsense. Web 2.0 methods can be used to speed up web pages by reducing the amount of traffic and work that is done on the server. Instead of having the server generate complete pages, it just generates the parts that need to be inserted or changed. Have a look at this cool Web 2.0 app(needs Mozilla/Firefox/XUL). I can find things much quicker than if I had to use the standard Amazon page.

Check out XUL. It is good enough to write a browser, Jabber client, or complete bookshop.

Check out some of the UI functionality here.

Just plain "Ajax" (which in my mind still reeks of a cleaning agent more than a web technology) does not seem to be enough to displace desktop apps, as the interfaces built with it are still clearly web interfaces - albeit more responsive ones. However the combination of asynchronous javascript, XmlHttpRequest and XUL (tutorial can be found here) seems to have more of a chance to provide a native application look and feel to a web-based application. A well-known example of such an app is the Amazon.com browser, give it a try if you have not done so.

Like this one. Imagine if AmEx wanted a XUL app for their customers to check their statements etc. etc., but dont want to pay to skill up a dev team to write the XUL app...

Can one use Python to do the same?
Not as a applet.
Where would it play its role? The backend or on client machines?
A little interface script on the server connecting to a database (like PHP does now most of the time.) Or to previde a complete CMS. On the clientside either XUL in Mozilla is still a Toolkit to be discovered or a browserindependant Python-client (Python is well integrated with native Toolkits, for example via wxWindows - used in bittorrent).

We need to add an xml language to invoke java inside browsers to balance the XAML features IE will provide. We need more innovation in the xml language the browser renders. It needs to render more complex things. The form elements need to be updated to match (or surpass) Macromedia Flex's UI library (menus, toolbars, tab pages, datagrid, tree control, editable combo box, etc).

>To get an idea of the power of XUL, check out the >Mozilla Amazon Browser which is in all ways a >faster and easier method for browsing amazon.

I agree and use this handy app all the time for research...find it here:
http://www.faser.net/mab/installation.cfm

I can't believe noone has said this:

use the source, luke!

(links blatantly stolen from the mozilla amazon link page)

But seriously, disassemble other peoples code is the best way to learn. See how they do thing. Javascript is easy enough to understand and there are millions of tutorials on the subject alone, but if you want to see how it interacts with XUL applications this is your best bet. And hey, all those applications are zero install and can run in the browser, how cool isn't that!? =P

I REALLY hope that this spurs development of XUL based applications. There are'nt that many yet, but I'd love to see more. (trying to learn myself)

Example of XUL app is the amazon.com content browser

http://www.faser.net/mab/remote.cfm

Of course you MUST use Mozilla/Firefox to view it!

9. XUL really rocks:
Have a look here: http://www.faser.net/mab/chrome/content/mab.xul

If you haven't seen this one, then you really need to. It's fully functional. And very cool.

Does it give me the ability to have processing in a webpage on the desktop? The ability to open windows with controls that look like "normal" (read: non-HTML) Windows-windows? The ability to create my own controls and use those on any desktop?

Um, pretty much, yeah. Open this in Firefox or Mozilla, or better yet, go here and click on the "launch in its own window" link.

Jedidiah.

Does it give me the ability to have processing in a webpage on the desktop? The ability to open windows with controls that look like "normal" (read: non-HTML) Windows-windows? The ability to create my own controls and use those on any desktop?

Um, pretty much, yeah. Open this in Firefox or Mozilla, or better yet, go here and click on the "launch in its own window" link.

Jedidiah.

That already exists! Ok, it doesn't let people buy book yet, but you can search. I wonder if the author of the article knew that. Check it out here and here. I've actually tried it out and it works really well.

Get the firefox extension here.

After seeing this demo of exactly what Firefox and XUL can do in the way of fast, rich applications, I think its only going to take a few significant applications in XUL to get people moving to Firefox just to get it.

Does anyone know if someone is writing a webmail client in XUL? If not, someone really needs to (I've even started looking at trying to do it myself, and I'm no coder). Compared to current webmail interfaces a XUL interface would be almost indistinguishable from a local mail client. All you need to do is have browser detection send users to the old style webmail client if they aren't using a browser that supports XUL.

Now, imagine if GMail started doing that... IE users of GMail get the standard webmail interface, but Firefox users get a full fast XUL interface. Have a look at that demo site again, and do some clicking around ... then tell me that that wouldn't be an absolutely killer app for Firefox.

Jedidiah.

After seeing this demo of exactly what Firefox and XUL can do in the way of fast, rich applications, I think its only going to take a few significant applications in XUL to get people moving to Firefox just to get it.

Does anyone know if someone is writing a webmail client in XUL? If not, someone really needs to (I've even started looking at trying to do it myself, and I'm no coder). Compared to current webmail interfaces a XUL interface would be almost indistinguishable from a local mail client. All you need to do is have browser detection send users to the old style webmail client if they aren't using a browser that supports XUL.

Now, imagine if GMail started doing that... IE users of GMail get the standard webmail interface, but Firefox users get a full fast XUL interface. Have a look at that demo site again, and do some clicking around ... then tell me that that wouldn't be an absolutely killer app for Firefox.

Jedidiah.

they offered IE for free in the hope that they could "embrace and extend" the internet - stopping all other browsers, and thereby stopping all other platforms - but it didn't work. so why should they bother any more? there's nothing to be gained by owning the users browser.

There is still a lot ot be gained from owning the users browser, because at long last real rich GUI apps are starting to be available over the web. We were promised web applications a long time ago, but all we got were forms and web pages that, while providing an interface were quite slow, and had a very bare bones interface.

Microsofts big new technology advancement for Longhorn is XAML and Avalon which, in theory, brings real fast rich web applications to the world. In the meantime firefox/mozilla is busy with XUL and related technologies (if you want to see what XUL can do, take a look at this site).

Web applications are going to happen. They aren't going to replace locally installed apps entirely, but they will fill niches with, for instance, powerful webmail interfaces (that look and behave like a local GUI), tax calculation apps, calendaring services, and all those simple database frontends etc. The question then, is who is going to provide the architecture for Web Apps? MS desperately wants to be the one to do it - because web applications are potentially completely platform agnostic. If Web applications are all XAML, then you need Windows to use them, and MS strengthens their monopoly. If XUL gets a decent foothold, then any platform that has Mozilla, Firefox, or in fact any XUL implementation (XUL is open source and LGPL, so whoever wants to can implement it), is a viable platform for those web apps.

What MS fears most is a world where a decent chunk of applications are completely platform agnostic, because then people simply won't care about Windows. Lose the monopoly stranglehold, and MS will be in severe trouble.

To keep that monopoly stranglehold MS has to, if not win this latest browser war, at least keep the fight going long and hard enough that Longhorn has significant market share (that's well past the release date), and hence XAML is the most widely available architecture via which to deliver web apps, before Mozilla/Firefox gets any really significant market share.

This war is surprisingly important.

Jedidiah.

I can't compare them on technical merits (I know ~0 about XAML) but XUL has the major advantage that it works now...

However XUL, the built in capability to do remote rich clients in gecko based browsers like Firefox has a chance to be mainstream.

With IE being everywhere it wouldn't be for a public site, but makes for a great interface for intranet web-based applications.

Check out a demo here (need js turned on):

http://www.faser.net/mab/remote.cfm

You need to have Opera ID itself as Opera. GMail uses ActiveX to display itself in IE, probably to avoid lots of complications from odd Javascript problems with IE. Since Opera is IDing as IE, GMail is assuming it has ActiveX support, which it does not.

Interesting that they had to resort to ActiveX. An interesting question though, is how long it will be before they'll detect Firefox/Mozilla users and have a powerful XUL interface available - if you could do a nice interface as rich and as fast as this GMail would start looking very impressive (and people would be moving very fast to Firefox to get it).

Jedidiah.

This is what Microsoft must be afraid of: cross-platform user interfaces with pluggable scripting languages and super-easy application deployment. This is why they originally fought Netscape - they were afraid that Netscape would become a "platform" independent from the operating system layer. And now exactly that is happening, thanks to open source. The people who designed this stuff were some true visionaries.

The Spread Firefox initiative may seem like a trite marketing effort. But in reality, it is one of the best ways to enable people to switch to other platforms tomorrow. I really hope that the Firefox hackers will get SVG support ready soon, as this is one of the other key features that can have immediate amazing benefits.