RE: [boost] Re: XMLUI (was Re: Re: UI++)
> May I come with a bit of scepticism? There's already XUL (see > http://xulplanet.com for a start, and > http://www.mozilla.org/catalog/architecture/xul/ for more details). > I think Mozilla folks put some effort into it, so I wonder if > XMLUI offers > something new/better? I would say that targets of these two projects are somewhat different. XML UI (IIUC) will support static definition of the layout and functionality in the C++ source code itself, while XUL defines layout (and some functionality) in the external XML file. It's like compile time (XMLUI) vs run-time (XUL). If you ask me, latter is a better approach if done right, but it is very hard to make all this portable. Drazen ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: XMLUI (was Re: Re: UI++)
Paul Hamilton wrote: I don't really want to go in to too much of an argument on this list about the difference between XUL and XMLUI. I have a ways to go before XMLUI is open source anyway, so it's all academic anyway. At some point I'll create a project Neither do I, because I couldn't provide an intelligent argument as I know little about both. I was just wondering if one could benefit from the other. David Bradley ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: XMLUI (was Re: Re: UI++)
There's more to it than just creating something that can render UI elements from XML stream. XMLUI is a lot more than this. For one thing it's optimized for animation (sort of like flash) so that interfaces are purely widgetless (as I mentioned earlier). XUL (which is actually a language, you could implement an XUL player using XMLUI) lacks a lot of basic concepts necessary to support the types of UI's that XMLUI can do. To be truly successful you need a UI editor that can generate the XML stream. And creating such an editor is probably less than trivial. Just like XUL, the XMLUI Editor uses XMLUI, so each time you add a new component you also get to have it in the GUI. that part of it pretty much exists, but running on Windows in a "non open source" capacity. So I think it would be better to focus on one goal rather than multiple. I think timing will be more critical now than creating alternatives. My current goal is to take a large body of work that I have built over many years and make it available as an open source project. The reason i thought it might be interesting for the Boost group was that in moving it to OSS I was investing in using Boost for most of the code. I don't really want to go in to too much of an argument on this list about the difference between XUL and XMLUI. I have a ways to go before XMLUI is open source anyway, so it's all academic anyway. At some point I'll create a project I just wanted to let the list know that I was working on it. - Paul Hamilton pHamtec P/L - Software Makers http://www.phamtec.com/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. - ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: XMLUI (was Re: Re: UI++)
Oh, just realized there is XULMaker for XUL. I haven't played with it much, so not sure how good it is. David Bradley ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: XMLUI (was Re: Re: UI++)
Paul Hamilton wrote: One of the major problems with it is it's lack of "independence" from it's primary application that it is based on - Mozilla. This is natural from a tool that "grew" out of the side of another program. I don't think there is any problems with having multiple XML based UI toolkits anyway. Diversity is a good thing :-) Outside of dividing valuable resources and creating confusion, it's probably not a bad thing. I'm not suggesting going with XUL. I think you need to look at the pro's and con's of each and then try and get buy in. If XMLUI is the way to go, wouldn't it be nice to have Mozilla buy in and possibly transition to it, and show it off? Or would it be better to go and address the short commings of XUL and possibly get the help in doing that from some of the Mozilla folk? I'm not knowledgeable enough to say which path is the best, or if there might be a completely different path. There's more to it than just creating something that can render UI elements from XML stream. To be truly successful you need a UI editor that can generate the XML stream. And creating such an editor is probably less than trivial. So I think it would be better to focus on one goal rather than multiple. I think timing will be more critical now than creating alternatives. David Bradley ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
