[Ros-talk] About GUI
shasckaw at skynet.be
Fri Dec 12 17:24:25 EST 2003
Simon Strandgaard wrote:
>On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 16:41, Shasckaw wrote:
>>Simon Strandgaard wrote:
>>>Above sounds to me as XUL requires a mozilla backend ;-)
>>I use the term XUL-like, not XUL alone. It is because XUL has a lot of
>>equivalents, and they are often called XULs wich is ambigüous. Here is a
>>list of existing engines:
>>Note the presence of GnuStep Renaissance.
>Yes.. Now I understand the reason why you mentioned that earlier.
>I have just been skipping through this XUL tutorial
>I must admit thats its amazing.. what never had occured to me that CSS
>could be used for GUI. I see now that it works _very_ well.
>I wonder how easy it will be to access via Ruby ?
>Also if its easy to write custom widgets?
The fact is that the XUL community complain about a lack of XUL engine
for scripting langage as ruby, python, perl, and so on.
The access via ruby, should be as easy as accessing XML. The scripting
of XUL should be written in ruby, when running with a XUL-ruby engine. I
About writing new widgets, I'm not sure.
I know that XUL is not self-sufficient:
you need CSS
you should use RDF file for the content (eventually generated by a
you should use XPCOM elements for extensibility. XPCOM elements are
COM-like objects, extensions of mozilla (plugins in other words) and
written in C/C++ langage (in fact, it can be any langage because of IDL
you should use XBL (Xml Binding Langage). I don't understand exactly
what it is, but I know that XUL is not truly native in Mozilla: XUL is
that wanted to refactor mozilla. Note that XBL is a standard of W3C:
As you see, it's a big piece! It can be really powerfull. But it can
also be an heavy and slow thing. We have to be carefull with that.
More information about the Ros-talk