Hi, Our internal content management system - incorporating Web, Teletext and (shortly) on-air TV systems uses XUL as a rich interface. Basically our user requirements meant that a flat web-based CMS wasn't suitable. And I was loathe to go forward with an HTML / Javascript based rich interface. We make extensive use of XUL trees and RDF templates, and a lot of our functionality is drag and drop based. All the RDF is created (of course) by Cocoon The really interesting thing about our system is that we also incorporate a legacy ActiveX OCX - using a Moz activex container (http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm)
We're using Firefox as our XUL browser. I won't say it was all plain sailing - but what we've ended up with is an incredibly rich, powerful interface, which is really dead easy to maintain. Things like context-menus are really non-trivial with HTML. With XUL it's very much business as usual ;) One of the biggest advantages we're getting is asynchronous processing within the client. For example, in an html model if a particular operation is expensive on the server side, the time taken to process is (usually) directly fed back to the user in terms of page response times. In a XUL model, you can use observers etc to ensure that the user can go on un-interrupted, and still ensure that responses are fed back to them as available. As you can probably tell - this is a tech which is fairly dear to my heart, feel free to ask more detailed questions if you'd like :) Corin -----Original Message----- From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 7 April 2004 11:00 a.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [RT] - XUL revisited.... Hello Corin, I would be really interested what means "XUL in production" for your company. We have created a remote web application with XUL almost a year ago: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=106448994624522&w=4. The mentioned URL is no longer online as the company is dead. The application and me are now at another company. I know the application is still in live use, but I don't know really the current status. Joerg On 05.04.2004 23:42, Corin Moss wrote: > Hiya, > > +++++++1 > > I can't quite say how many plus ones the idea of XUL support from > Cforms gets from me. As I mentioned earlier, we've been using XUL in > production to drive a web based GUI for a couple of months now. The > feature set we get is just amazing. The other interesting thing, in > relation to Luke's point is that there is actually a flash based XUL > engine - meaning that those 98% could still make use of the XUL. It's > not fully featured yet, and does carry a non OSS license with it - but > bear it in mind: > > http://zulu.netspedition.com/zulu/main/overview.shtml > > The other thing to consider here is *shudder* Longhorn. M'soft have > made it very clear that their next gen GUI interface will be based > around a beast incredibly similar to XUL. If we start with XUL > support now, adapting a Longhorn interface also becomes fairly > trivial. > > I'm willing to help in any XUL development exercise. > > Corin ================================================================ CAUTION: This e-mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is intended to be read only by the named recipient(s). It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary or the subject of legal privilege. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or organisation. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us immediately and delete this e-mail from your system. Do not use any information contained in it. ================================================================ For more information on the Television New Zealand Group, visit us online at http://www.tvnz.co.nz ================================================================
