Jazilla Milestone 1 Released

mcbridematt writes "Many of the long time Slashdot readers will remember the Jazilla project to rewrite the Mozilla browser in Java. It went into hibernation in 2000 and I took it over last August. I have completely rewrote the browser which now follows a more Mozilla-like architecture. The Result: Jazilla Milestone 1 has been released. Download it from here. No prizes for guessing that it's Alpha software." Read on below for a list of what Jazilla can do, so far.

"Significant (implemented) features include:

• chrome:// support
• JavaScript implemented for the GUI thanks to the Mozilla.org Rhino engine. HTML Scripting coming.
• GUI in part, uses XUL and W3C DOM
• Written in 100% Java
• Open Source
• Uses the NetBrowser renderer, which is actually based on Jazilla-classic work."

Comments

its interesting

[jeepee]

dont get me wrong i think its an interresting project but why write in Java a software that is already available on a huge variety of platforms (its mainly the advantage of writing java apps).

also Mozilla is lacking a bit of speed im sure you wont help in java.....

Too much time on their hands

[jezzgoodwin]

I may be being a little harsh here but what exactly is the point in this?

Java's redeeming feature is that it is a cross platform environment. Which is all well and lovely.

Everything else about Java is horrible, like speed issues etc.

This project is to "make a mozilla clone in java". So by doing this you'd assume they'd be making mozilla cross platform (because that's the only logical reason for using java)... But Mozilla is already cross platform!!! Any platform it doesn't support you shouldn't be using for browsing the web with!

And anyways, you still need java to be installed to run it... Install java for a crappy browser or install Mozilla? I know which I'd prefer to do.

Jezz

Re:Too much time on their hands

[botzi]

But the speed thing is frustrating, especially when developing.

Well, yeah, I do agree that waiting for the damn window to appear some 30 secs after launching the application is frustrating. So definitely the GUI and some input/output routines need improvement, but at the same time, once the JVM's started and the program initialized, there isn't so much to be said about how slow Java is......
I was recently suprised when a friend of mine did a benchmark on recursion functions and JVM performed better than gcc -o2..........
Yeah... well it's clear that when neither Mozilla nor Java could fly, Jazilla will hardly walk... but that doesn't make it a useless project.....;o)

Re:Too much time on their hands

[jfengel]

There's more to Java than cross-platform. In fact, with all the various versions running around, I'd say its cross-platform qualities are significantly overrated.

Java is far more important in its security and software engineering features (which are actually very closely related). I find that I'm far more productive in Java than I ever was in C++ and C. I find that's even truer for less experienced programmers. Java increases the ability of programmers to work together through better memory management, better type enforcement, exceptions, etc.

You don't really need to hear all this. At this point you either believe it or not and I'm not going to convince you.

I haven't been able to compare it to C#, which appears to offer many of the same advantages over C/C++. I think of Java in a different class from languages like Perl and PHP, which are less well-suited to teamwork, which is an important goal of mine.

So the reason for this is not because we need another browser (boy, do we not) but because Java needs a browser for use in its environment. Java is still very poor on the client side, for a host of reasons, one of which is its lack of browser integration. Applets were always a stupid idea, I'm afraid, because software distribution via applets just isn't ready and the toys are generally beneath contempt.

You need a browser as part of Java. It's the best way to view text, whether for help, mail, etc. Java has several, but none are really any good because they're not 100% compatible with the lastest rounds of HTML/HTTP/Javascript. A browser, compatible with IE and Mozilla, will help make Java a decent client environment.

Re:woo..

[KrispyKringle]

No, you can't. I assume this was intended as a joke, but I may as well point out that unless a program is not an applet, unless it implements the interface Applet (I think thats the right name...). You can't run any random Java program from a web browser or applet viewer.

Re:IE, Mozilla, and Opera are all I need!

[evilviper]

Other than being Java-based, what's the point of this web browser?

I could probably name 100+ embedded devices that support java. Having an Open Source java browser is a good thing.

Besides that, I could also harp about the security of java.

Hmm, it would be ironic if Jazilla had a problem running applets.

Re:Why?

[pyrrho]

I find this line of reasoning a bit pathetic.

Just because we have more CPU power do you think that justifies wasting this power? I guess that Java is for people that already have computers more powerful than they can handle? Personally, I'd rather even give my cycles to SETI@HOME than give them to some VM.

And Java is still slow. Or Swing, or whichever excuse... perhaps it's slow because my VM is optimizing my code behind the scenes.

You've lowered your standards for performance, that's the whole story. Your reason is neither good nor bad nor compelling to someone that still values performance.

These Java processes take 15 meg and up on solaris, at least. They half the power of my machine, they half it's value. I need two machines instead of one. Is that good? Why the hell should I care if they run just as well as old applications on old machines? Why in the hell would I be happy about that... you think I'm nostalgic or something?

Re:Jazilla: In case your computer was too fast

[Jon_E]

Wow - I wonder if people would be saying the same thing about other languages if there was a lot of poorly written C++, C, or even assembler out there. Putting everything under the sun in your jars and classpath coupled with an improper understanding of code optimizations are typically more at fault here.

Mozilla (like KDE) is more memory consumptive thanks to a combination of poorly hacked eye candy code. Then when you start swapping pages out - it might actually be time to drop more memory in your box.

Why not deal with the real beasts here? - the integration of Java with X11 and Win32. All it takes is one quick look at the number of layers of indirection that MS provides to see that a poorly executed language set like ActiveX is going to outperform Swing or Jimi every time on Windows.

XUL question

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, could someone explain to me why using XUL to implement the GUI isn't just a way of adding a useless extra layer of bloat? It seems like it provides you flexibility, but honestly I can't think of why I'd want the flexibility to run a browser within a browser. I just want to browse web pages, and that's all. It seems like web browsers lost sight of that as a goal long ago...

A friendly suggestion

[pongo000]

What's needed in this world isn't another clone of *zilla written in the language du jour. The problem with anything written with the Mozilla (or Gecko engine) is speed: Why should it take more than a few fractions of a second to render HTML?

And yes, it's been done already: Dillo is a blindingly-fast HTML engine/browser that runs from a binary less than 300Kb. No, it doesn't support frames, nor Javascript, nor any of the other kitchen-sink items all other browsers strive to be. Instead, Dillo sports a plug-in interface (open-source, naturally) that allows for all of this to happen, if the user wants it to happen.

So here's my suggestion: Take a cue from Dillo and go for speed, not for bloat.

Oh, and I should add that Dillo renders /. and Yahoo just fine.

Re:Running this puppy

[axxackall]

assuming Java is properly installed on your machine, you need only run: java org/jxul/xulrunner/Main

Assuming that mozilla is properly installed on your machine, you need only run: /usr/bin/mozilla

And presuming I run anything only if sources are available, I don't want any Java VM on my machine.

Re:Who pay for it?

[JohnnyCannuk]

+3 Insightful? WTF? Did the all the anti-Java FUD /.ers get their mod points today?

First you place the blame on Java as one of the bloat/UI "candies" that are forcing people to upgrade thier PC. Then you say that Java has mostly expanded on the server market. So which is it? They aren't big currently big in the GUI department (although if you go here, you'll see that is changing). So tell me again how Java, which runs mostly on servers, is forcing people to upgrade their PC because of UI bloat?

Or how this is part of this conspiracy since Java is made by a company that doesn't make a desktop PC, a company that until recently didn't even support the x86 architecture very well, a company that makes high-end servers and workstations that have exceeded your "typical" PC mentioned above for years?

I agree that Java does on the server "what was easy to program and cheap to run using Apache/CGI/PHP/Perl/Python". It also does it faster (Python, by about 20%), with more maintainable code (Perl) and more securely (CGI). Apache (and by extension Jakarta) has always worked hand-in hand with Java quite well. But then, there are times when Perl and Python are the better choice, so use the right tool for the job.

Comparing Swing to Flash is like comparing Gnome with HTML. That's right....apples and oranges. Excellent strawman attack but it doesn't work. The two are for totally different UI environments.

Mods, just because you don't know Java or agree with the FUD doesn't make this guys tripe right.

Re:Why?

[TheNetAvenger]

Once this is done, then it would be possible to have ONE JVM running on the system for all Java applications. The JVM could launch at startup and then even the inital load times would be greatly reduced. I believe that this is the way Apple is handling Java (Can't confirm it though).

So, when this issue is resolved, running Java on a machine could mean only giving up a maximum amount of 16MB of RAM for the JVM and the rest for the application. To be honest that is what most Java programs are doing today

After more than 10 years of getting computer users to OSes that separate and protect applications and processes, now we are going back to the old monolithic model, so that one bad JAVA app can compromise all other JAVA apps within the JVM.

Give me a break guys... This is not the direction a platform or programming model should be pushing developers just because Sun cannot get performance to a reasonable level.

Heck even look at VB and its runtime engine, it even consumes less memory and runs as an isolated process. (And VB has tons of stuff in it that weighs it down considerably.)

Come on Sun, give us what you promised six years ago. Quit wasting time suing companies and actually put some work into development.

No wonder that even the Server developers at Sun have been complaining about JAVA and its performance on their own OSes.

Re:mmmm

[bill_mcgonigle]

any idea why anybody would want or need to use that?

They wouldn't. It's not about the users, it's about the developers.

I use Mozilla, but I rarely hack on it. Why? I hate C++. It's a miserable language for developing an application. Java, on the other hand, is a great language for application development. The performance issues will melt away very soon as both the JRE and hardware improve. If I find a problem with Jazilla, I'm very likely to try to fix/enhance it.

Plus, I happen to know both C++ and Java, but most kids coming out of school have never hacked C++. They've all hacked Java. These are the most likely hackers to work on a web browser.

Let's come back in a year and see if Jazilla is more interesting to users, when it's fast, stable, and pretty, due to all the volunteer efforts.

Short of a WxRuby port of Mozilla, this is what really has me interested.