Sure, if I will manage it I will report back.
At the moment I decided to use the Python bindings to the GTK+ library in
order to learn GTK+ and create the project I have in mind because of the
huge number of modules available for Python and my relative familiarity with
Python in contrast to Gjs / S
Hi,
I am sure qx-oo can be used in any JavaScript Runtime. Please let us know, if
you had any success.
Thanks!
Tino
Am 09.12.2011 um 10:23 schrieb omrihar:
Hi All,
I haven't tried yet really to do gnome 3 development (or gnome 2 for that
matter), but I do know that it is possible to write app
check out komodo-edit
the way they develop an IDE using python + XULrunner + javascript and it
works superb.
currently easier way is to use xulrunner as chrome-native can only code in
C - (citation needed )
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:49 PM, omrihar wrote:
> Yea, I'm thinking along these lines...
Yea, I'm thinking along these lines...
My question arose since I want to develop a standalone application and since
I'm using Qooxdoo a lot these days, I thought it could be nice to use the
classes/property system/data binding/etc.. features of QX which make
programming easier while developing th
So to use all features of both (Qooxdoo + GTK) we'll need to rewrite a
qooxdoo for gtk right?
gqxoodoo may be , qooxdoo without neeed for DOM , and uses gtk widgets
instead.
interesting , with that we can easily port qooxdoo web apps into local app
without need of XUL/Native Chrome/Browser and pe
As far as I understand it, Qxoo gives you the Object-Orientation layer of
Qooxdoo which can work without a DOM, outside a browser (run from Node.js or
Rhino for example).
About gnome-3 development, I guess what I meant to say is that perhaps using
GTK+3 with Javascript bindings which are provided
QX Will need DOM , would this work?
and gnome3 would need whole gnomedesktop right? wont be portable across
systems for that.
u mean gtk3?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:53 PM, omrihar wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I haven't tried yet really to do gnome 3 development (or gnome 2 for that
> matter), but I do k
Hi All,
I haven't tried yet really to do gnome 3 development (or gnome 2 for that
matter), but I do know that it is possible to write applications for Gnome 3
using JavaScript. This naturally led me to wonder if anyone has tried to use
the wonderful features of the Qooxdoo OO with GObject based de
John,
great. Derrell has meanwhile been busy thinking about similar issues
(bug#5095). I'll see how these things converge, and will add comments to
the bug.
T.
On 05/10/2011 11:12 AM, John Spackman wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I've finally got round to doing this - the bug report is
> http://bugzil
Hi Thomas,
I've finally got round to doing this - the bug report is
http://bugzilla.qooxdoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5100 and includes a custom
loader and include file for config.json. There's no patches to the core
framework required but the bug report has a proposal for some potentially
useful chang
Hi Thomas
You're right, it's looking pretty straightforward - using the qxoo* jobs
in the framework's config.json as a base, I've got jobs that generate a
boot script and today I'll finish the boot load the "library:uri" paths
and it should "just work".
I'll file a bug when I've got a proof of co
On 04/11/2011 07:13 PM, John Spackman wrote:
> So that I can debug them. The qxoo and qxoo-noopt jobs both compile all
> relevant Qx files into one big, unformatted file which makes it hard to
> step through them. OK, I don't actually expect to be debugging the Qx
> code because it's so stable b
So that I can debug them. The qxoo and qxoo-noopt jobs both compile all
relevant Qx files into one big, unformatted file which makes it hard to
step through them. OK, I don't actually expect to be debugging the Qx
code because it's so stable but I do want to write my own libraries and
apps that r
Why would you want a source version of framework classes?!
T.
On 04/11/2011 04:54 PM, John Spackman wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> I'm starting to do some experimentation with qxoo using Rhino, but the
> first thing I notice is that the generator always outputs all files as a
> single file with all formatt
Hey,
thats currently not supported by some default job. But you should be able to
write such a job by yourself by just changing the frameworks qxoo jobs, at
least for the non formated version.
For the source version, you would need to create your own loader template which
could be some more work
Hi guys
I'm starting to do some experimentation with qxoo using Rhino, but the first
thing I notice is that the generator always outputs all files as a single
file with all formatting removed even the noopts version has no
formatting. Is there a way to generate the qxoo.js with formatting?
Ide
Hi Thomas,
thron7-2 wrote:
>
> Your server-side code should go into a different library, and
> into the normal source/class path. Then there is also no issue with the
> Apiviewer. And if you want it combined, "require" the server-side classes
> in a (dummy) client class (if you want in a third
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> the "services" folder (could also be named differently) contains the
> server-side classes, i.e. a script that starts the node.js-based json-rpc
> server, plus all the classes that contain the service methods. This way,
> one
> could use the API viewer to create a documentation o
Hi Thomas,
the "services" folder (could also be named differently) contains the
server-side classes, i.e. a script that starts the node.js-based json-rpc
server, plus all the classes that contain the service methods. This way, one
could use the API viewer to create a documentation of the server-s
>
>
> thron7-2 wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2010 08:44 AM, panyasan wrote:
>>> would be extremely useful for people who already use it is if it was
>>> possible to create an API viewer from the server-side files.
>>
>> What do you mean? An Apiviewer that holds the classes that went into
>> qxoo? - Sure. A
I'm pretty sure all you have to do is tell the Generator to view your
code as a (qooxdoo) library. I managed to generate an APIViewer for my
qxoo-based project simply by dumping the classes into a contribution
skeleton :-)
Regards,
Daniel
panyasan schrieb:
>
> thron7-2 wrote:
>> On 08/11/201
thron7-2 wrote:
>
> On 08/11/2010 08:44 AM, panyasan wrote:
>> would be extremely useful for people who already use it is if it was
>> possible to create an API viewer from the server-side files.
>
> What do you mean? An Apiviewer that holds the classes that went into
> qxoo? - Sure. An Apiview
On 08/11/2010 08:44 AM, panyasan wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I think due to its maturity and usefulness, qxoo has a glorious future ahead
> in non-browser environment. Another feature that would add to its appeal and
> would be extremely useful for people who already use it is if it was
> possible to
Hello,
I think due to its maturity and usefulness, qxoo has a glorious future ahead
in non-browser environment. Another feature that would add to its appeal and
would be extremely useful for people who already use it is if it was
possible to create an API viewer from the server-side files. I woul
Hey,
Thank you sooo much !
I'll migrate from JS.Class to qxoo after a few tries AFAIC.
I'll let you know any issue.
Thank you again !
Before Printing, Think about Your Environmental Responsibility!
Avant d'Imprimer, Pensez à Votre Responsabilitée Environnementale!
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:00
On 08/09/2010 08:29 AM, Stéphane wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Yes I would definitily love the sending of the js files !
>
> I want the source to see how it works only, not to change the things.
> But if it is something hard to have, well the build will be enough (hope
> there is no obfuscation or su
Hi Guys,
I wrote similar object oriented model some time ago, accessible as BLite.
The library contains also some dom manipulation methods, but they can be
ripped out.
BLite: http://code.google.com/p/blite
Source http://code.google.com/p/blite/source/browse/trunk/BLite/Lib.Core.js
Using BLite is
Hi Martin,
Yes I would definitily love the sending of the js files !
I want the source to see how it works only, not to change the things.
But if it is something hard to have, well the build will be enough (hope
there is no obfuscation or such).
Thank you both !
Before Printing, Think about Yo
Hi Stéphane,
I recently did something similar by adding a generate job to qooxdoo which
builds a single JS file only including the qx oo layer. Take a look at the blog
post [1] to get some details. The thing is you still need to have the python
stuff and the whole SDK but you only need it once
> Hi list,
>
> I need a OO layer for my javascripts and I "don't arrive" to go within all
> the qx sdk and python things.
>
> I'm actually using JS.Class as a OO layer.
> Does someone it and tells me which one the best from the both ?
I don't know it, so I can't make recommendations. But it looks
Hi list,
I need a OO layer for my javascripts and I "don't arrive" to go within all
the qx sdk and python things.
I'm actually using JS.Class as a OO layer.
Does someone it and tells me which one the best from the both ?
Is there a way or someone who can gives me the build and source file of the
31 matches
Mail list logo
