--- Gerald Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> William Etson writes:
>
> XUL4J is yet another fork of the jXUL source. A
> Java based XUL engine based on Mozilla XUL 1.4. The
> library will be released under LGPL.
>
> More @ http://sourceforge.net/projects/xul4j
>
> What's your take? Is anyone interested in joining
> the XUL4J team?
I am not one to bash someone for working on opensource
projects especially since its a labor of passion... so
take this constructively.
My first reaction was to ask why start with jXUL? The
jXUL code sucked when I looked at it 2yrs ago and it
still sucks as xul4j. Why does it suck?
1) too many cyclic dependency between packages making
it hard to use a package on its own. This is not
necessarily a bad thing. For example if package A
depends on package B and vice versa, it just means
that package A and package B must be used together.
2) inappropriate use of inheritance creates brittle
class hierarchy. All the tag implmentation are
subclasses of swing components.
Because of the reasons above, it makes it impossible
to plug in a different widget implementation.
Sulu shares the same goal as jXUL to have a 100%
mozilla XUL compatible implementation in java, but
great care is taken to avoid unnecessarily cyclic
dependency of packages and used a composition
delegation technique instead of inheritance. An SWT,
J2ME widgets, or custom rendered widgets can be
plugged in without drastically changing the sulu code.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
_______________________________________________
xul-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
