Alexander Kaupp pisze:
Hi Dariuz,
wow great job :)
Gut the benefit of using XUL would be that it can be run in a
XUL-capable browser or native as an local application or both :)
In your case it could be possible to generate XUL on the server instead
of HTML and send this to the browser. And if you have all XUL-Documents
local on a machine with the app-binary it should run as a local app.
Of course I can generate XUL, but thus I don't control how its look
like, how its rendering. Some times it is advantages, some disadvantages.
In other posts there are discus how application should look: on every OS
the same or follow style of OS.
But for me more important is behavior of application, how it play with
mouse, keyboard.
For me web application should be aware:
- function and arrow keys
- tabs (browser walk also through href, not only input field)
- reload, back browser command (for example: what do back after close
forms with saved transaction)
- modal forms (with expected behavior on browser and server side)
and many others
Is this possible to control with XUL? I doubt.
And it could be possible to have the GUI on the client started by the
browser or XULrunner and the application on the server. There are a lot
of options then.
I don't say about theoretical possibility. I don't have several years to
build quite new application. I;ve simply took exist API,
an build library for web. An I must say, that is not problem generate
web pages: need HTML code is simple and CSS is very flexible, on web is
much beautiful examples.
Most hard problem is the rest: how browser is cooperate with server, how
it play with instances, events , how is transfer optimized. XUL or EXTJS
are only one abstract layer, similar to GTK or WIN32. But to effective
build application we need LCL or VCL, which used them.
--
Darek
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
