From Richard_Klein at tones.com Tue Aug 3 09:39:45 2004 From: Richard_Klein at tones.com (Richard_Klein@tones.com) Date: Tue Aug 3 10:40:24 2004 Subject: [Mozcreator] Why recreate an IDE? Message-ID: I'm just wondering why recreate an IDE. Doesn't make sense to create a rich client for eclipse 3.0 or even just a plug-in for eclipse? Rich Klein From rjkeller at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 16:19:51 2004 From: rjkeller at gmail.com (R.J. Keller) Date: Mon Aug 9 16:36:48 2004 Subject: [Mozcreator] Re: Next-generation MozCreator compilation system In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Brendan, I cc'ed you to this conversation since you might have useful knowledge to add. I'm sure you know more about this than I do :). On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:31:57 -0600, Ryan Probasco wrote: > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:34:06 -0500, R.J. Keller wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:55:43 -0600, Ryan Probasco > > wrote: > > > R.J., > > > > > > Sounds cool! I always wondered what preprocessor tools were available > > > in this area. One concern though...is it possible to make Ant the > > > primary tool? I think you would likely get more support for something > > > like this if arguments could be specified via the build.xml. Anyway, > > > it's just a thought. > > > > I'm having issues where Ant isn't executing a perl script right. Not > > really sure why. If you can get it to work, then I'd say sure! Just > > take a peak at client.mk. The only thing the makefiles do is run a > > Perl script and call Ant (but the perl script does run Zip). > > > > Here's the manual to the preprocessor: > > http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/unix/preprocessor/README > > > > I took the MozCreator code and added a ton of precondition checking to > > each method that is #ifdef'ed out when MOZ_DEBUG isn't set as an > > environment variable. I also made a bunch of other variables defined > > (IS_BETA, VERSION_NUMBER, etc.). I'll post an article about the new > > build system in my blog. > > > > Here's the new version -> http://www.trfenv.com/rlk/MozCreator2.zip > > > > Commands: > > - "make -f client.mk build" Compiles MozCreator > > - "make -f client.mk clean" Removes compiled files. The same as > > running "cd dist, ant clean" > > - "make -f client.mk run" Runs MozCreator. The same as running "cd > > dist, ant run" > > I'll have a look at this when I get home tonight. > > > > > > > > > I've been thinking a lot about the Swing/XUL/SWT issue. The more I > > > think about it the more I feel that we would probably be better off > > > using SWT and making an Eclipse plugin. I think the advantages really > > > outweigh the disadvantages. Mainly this is because if we develop on > > > Eclipse the only part that really needs to be developed is the GUI > > > builder...everything else is already done. > > > > > > > true, but is it worth sacrificing user-friendliness? I know that I'm > > throwing that back in there :). > > > > Yeah....this still bothers me too:) > > > My main issue with Eclipse is the fact that we can't seem to ship a > > Mozilla-only IDE. Just Mozilla, no switching between modes and no > > additional plugin support. Just nice and easy. From what I've seen, > > Eclipse doesn't offer this. > > True, but one thing that Eclipse does offer that is of real worth is > that all of these tools are available on one platform. This comes in > very handy when you are trying to mix technologies in new ways. For > example, a web developer who wants to use XUL (but not JRrex or XPCOM) > can use all of the web development tools he is already famililar with > and easily integerate with a XUL GUI builder. Similarly, a developer > who wants to use XPCOM can use the C/C++ plugins that are already > available in conjunction with the same XUL GUI builder he used on a > web project previously. Want to use XUL with PHP? How about Python or > C#? The possibilities are endless. This is what is bringing so many > developers to the Eclipse platform right now, and it doesn't appear to > be slowing down at all. > But using C# or PHP can easily be integrated into Mozilla already. C# uses the same DLL files and format that C++ .NET uses, which you can use to compile Mozilla. But what I don't understand is that how would we be able to add PHP? Even with a plugin, such a thing would need extra coding to integrate with XUL (unless Eclipse offers some connection). If there is some way for Eclipse to cross platforms, then that would be the ultimate ability, but I doubt that could work. I couldn't think of how such a thing could be done without knowing the platform. > > I'm not sure how compaitble the two are because I've never tried to > combine them. I do, however know that Swing plugins do exist for the > Eclipse platform. I also know that the VE project (another Eclipse > plugin) is a complete Swing GUI builder that displays Swing widgets > while editing. VE is built on the GEF. oh really? That would be nice. We can do a lot then. > > > > > > JRex requires Swing, designing the main components in a modular fasion > > > might allow us to easly port it to a different IDE (our own?) when > > > MozCreator starts to gain popularity (as long as we can bring GEF with > > > it). > > > > > > In any case, I think that we will save a lot of headache if we build > > > the smaller portion on top of Eclipse first. We can event include a > > > custom prefs pane for setting up the build tool:). > > > > > > > What is the smaller portion? I assume you mean the GUI builder. > > > > A significant portion of our project's goals have already been met in > Eclipse. By leveraging this techonology, we are left with only the > GUI builder and perhaps some JRex and XPCOM extensions for easier > integration. > > > Since I'm not sure which part to go, I do have mozcreator-eclipse on > > CVS which will hold any Eclipse tests. We have all the time in the > > world, so I say let's do both and after some prototypes see which one > > works better. I know that it's the more time-consuming route but we > > don't have any deadlines. > > > > > > I couldn't have said it better:) > > Since there really are a lot of unknowns with the technology at this > point, I fully support this idea. > yeah, I know nothing about how to make Eclipse plugins. Do you know of any good documentation or books on this subject? Maybe the real question is does making a Eclipse plug-in make MozCreator rely on Eclipse (like maybe not heavily, but in terms that some UI cannot be reused). Also, here's my blog entry on the new build system: http://rjkeller.blogspot.com/2004/08/new-java-build-system-sorta.html -- R.J. Keller mozilla.org Help Systems Module Owner http://mozilla.org/projects/help-viewer http://rjkeller.blogspot.com/ http://mozcreator.mozdev.org From richwklein at mchsi.com Tue Aug 10 17:17:55 2004 From: richwklein at mchsi.com (richwklein@mchsi.com) Date: Tue Aug 10 13:22:41 2004 Subject: [Mozcreator] Re: Mozilla Only IDE Message-ID: <081020041617.1703.6ac8@mchsi.com> > > My main issue with Eclipse is the fact that we can't seem to ship a > > Mozilla-only IDE. Just Mozilla, no switching between modes and no > > additional plugin support. Just nice and easy. From what I've seen, > > Eclipse doesn't offer this. If you wanted a mozilla only IDE, a posibilty might be to create a Rich Client using the eclipse 3.0 RCP. That way you still leverage most of the Eclipse framework, but you don't have to include all the excess baggage. The Eclipse RCP SDK is about 18 megs versus the 87 megs for the complete Eclipse SDK. Here is a link to rcp tutorial. It includes links to other references. > Send Mozcreator mailing list submissions to > mozcreator@mozdev.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/mozcreator > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > mozcreator-request@mozdev.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > mozcreator-owner@mozdev.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Mozcreator digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Next-generation MozCreator compilation system (R.J. Keller) > _______________________________________________ > Mozcreator mailing list > Mozcreator@mozdev.org > http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/mozcreator From rjkeller at gmail.com Thu Aug 12 19:13:34 2004 From: rjkeller at gmail.com (R.J. Keller) Date: Thu Aug 12 19:30:28 2004 Subject: [Mozcreator] MozCreator Roadmap Message-ID: here's a VERY basic release plan for MozCreator: M1 - text editing with the tab editor - project creation and management M2 - Compiles and runs XUL applications. M3/0.1 alpha - GUI editor alpha/beta 0.2 Beta - tweaking of all component in general Should give you an idea of what we hope to accomplish and maybe some goals for upcoming releases. Note that the milestone releases should be of Alpha quality for the components listed above for that release (unless says otherwise). With each new release, the alpha features should be of Beta quality for that next milestone, final release quality afterward. -- R.J. Keller mozilla.org Help Systems Module Owner http://mozilla.org/projects/help-viewer http://rjkeller.blogspot.com/ http://mozcreator.mozdev.org From rjkeller at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 14:28:29 2004 From: rjkeller at gmail.com (R.J. Keller) Date: Mon Aug 16 14:45:34 2004 Subject: [Mozcreator] Re: Eclipse XUL app-builder In-Reply-To: <4120E9FB.68BCB662@objectweb.org> References: <1279BACE.467FFFBC@mail.gmail.com> <40FFD1A1.5070103@meer.net> <41012017.499A7902@objectweb.org> <41013518.4C8D3A11@objectweb.org> <4101447F.48D303CB@objectweb.org> <4101528C.203AF299@objectweb.org> <41050E88.C2B7222B@objectweb.org> <41053D4B.72EC119D@objectweb.org> <41079154.F610C940@objectweb.org> <4120AAA2.2CD1095D@objectweb.org> <4120CA7F.64F83B8A@objectweb.org> <4120E9FB.68BCB662@objectweb.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:08:11 +0200, Dominique DE VITO > > As said before, Eclipse WTP could help to bring faster a Mozilla IDE above > itself. One idea is to support JRex - The Java Browser Component - as a web > server, just like IE or Mozilla itself (planned Eclipse WTP features = 'Start, > stop and restart servers' + 'Run server processes in the Eclipse debugger' + > ...). Then, a (limited) LiveConnect code example might show how to take advantage > of Eclipse+JRex integration, for example, for XUL page rendering. > > So, my first idea is to push, into Eclipse WTP, for JRex support ASAP. I will > keep you posted about that.. > > This is the kind of idea I was thinking about when talking (previously) about > "(2) the components and the technologies you are relying on (with web links)". > So, if you see other good idea, just drop me a line ! Thanks. > > > > Regards, > Dominique De Vito > // Eclipse WTP Planning Comittee > > A couple of problems: JRex doesn't work with Eclipse. It requires a Swing backend. I don't know what you mean by web server. JRex needs to be built off of a Mozilla build. You can't have JRex on a server (like an applet). A better idea might be, if it's possible, to use the Eclipse Mozilla integration to use a specific Mozilla GRE. This GRE can be built so that all JavaScript is trusted, which would help us get around our security problem. Me personally, I'm starting to think we should build the IDE in XUL. I know that eclipse provides a lot of features to make our life easier, but it seems strange to make a IDE without using the language it's meant to assist (Visual Studio -> .NET, NetBeans -> JFC, Eclipse -> SWT). Ryan was thinking of making a Java BE and a XUL FE which might be possible. One question: By Eclipse integration, do you mean a plugin or using SWT and other eclipse libraries for a GUI FE? -- R.J. Keller mozilla.org Help Systems Module Owner http://mozilla.org/projects/help-viewer http://rjkeller.blogspot.com/ http://mozcreator.mozdev.org From dominique.devito at objectweb.org Wed Aug 18 18:05:11 2004 From: dominique.devito at objectweb.org (Dominique DE VITO) Date: Wed Aug 18 11:19:51 2004 Subject: [Mozcreator] Re: Eclipse XUL app-builder References: <1279BACE.467FFFBC@mail.gmail.com> <40FFD1A1.5070103@meer.net> <41012017.499A7902@objectweb.org> <41013518.4C8D3A11@objectweb.org> <4101447F.48D303CB@objectweb.org> <4101528C.203AF299@objectweb.org> <41050E88.C2B7222B@objectweb.org> <41053D4B.72EC119D@objectweb.org> <41079154.F610C940@objectweb.org> <4120AAA2.2CD1095D@objectweb.org> <4120CA7F.64F83B8A@objectweb.org> <4120E9FB.68BCB662@objectweb.org> Message-ID: <41237027.9F65B840@objectweb.org> "R.J. Keller" wrote : > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:08:11 +0200, Dominique DE VITO > > > > As said before, Eclipse WTP could help to bring faster a Mozilla IDE above > > itself. One idea is to support JRex - The Java Browser Component - as a web > > server, just like IE or Mozilla itself (planned Eclipse WTP features = 'Start, > > stop and restart servers' + 'Run server processes in the Eclipse debugger' + > > ...). Then, a (limited) LiveConnect code example might show how to take advantage > > of Eclipse+JRex integration, for example, for XUL page rendering. > > > > So, my first idea is to push, into Eclipse WTP, for JRex support ASAP. I will > > keep you posted about that.. > > > > This is the kind of idea I was thinking about when talking (previously) about > > "(2) the components and the technologies you are relying on (with web links)". > > So, if you see other good idea, just drop me a line ! Thanks. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Dominique De Vito > > // Eclipse WTP Planning Comittee > > > > > > A couple of problems: JRex doesn't work with Eclipse. It requires a > Swing backend. I have not put too much my hands into the JRex documentation. I have just read JRex : "Compatible with AWT and Swing". Anyway, I don't see at this point problems as Eclipse SWT could be integrated with Swing. So, I see JRex as Mozilla + a Java layer. In Eclipse WTP, we will support Mozilla as a web browser for web rendering. If JRex brings more Java integration, a good move could be to support JRex also. For XUL purposes for example (some people have already expressed in the past their interest in XUL in eclipse.webtools newsgroup). > I don't know what you mean by web server. It was a typo-like, I was thinking about 'web browser' instead. > JRex needs to > be built off of a Mozilla build. You can't have JRex on a server (like > an applet). > > A better idea might be, if it's possible, to use the Eclipse Mozilla > integration to use a specific Mozilla GRE. This GRE can be built so > that all JavaScript is trusted, which would help us get around our > security problem. > > Me personally, I'm starting to think we should build the IDE in XUL. I Yes, a pretty good idea. > > know that eclipse provides a lot of features to make our life easier, > but it seems strange to make a IDE without using the language it's > meant to assist (Visual Studio -> .NET, NetBeans -> JFC, Eclipse -> > SWT). Ryan was thinking of making a Java BE and a XUL FE which might > be possible. > > One question: By Eclipse integration, do you mean a plugin or using > SWT and other eclipse libraries for a GUI FE? I was thinking about Eclipse as a platform : - on one hand, using edition capabilities of Eclipse, like XML edition capabilities - on the other hand, using Mozilla rendering capabilities and integration of both sides. Dominique > > > -- > R.J. Keller > mozilla.org Help Systems Module Owner > > http://mozilla.org/projects/help-viewer > http://rjkeller.blogspot.com/ > http://mozcreator.mozdev.org From rjkeller at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 12:16:16 2004 From: rjkeller at gmail.com (R.J. Keller) Date: Wed Aug 18 12:33:25 2004 Subject: [Mozcreator] Re: Eclipse XUL app-builder In-Reply-To: <41237027.9F65B840@objectweb.org> References: <1279BACE.467FFFBC@mail.gmail.com> <40FFD1A1.5070103@meer.net> <41012017.499A7902@objectweb.org> <41013518.4C8D3A11@objectweb.org> <4101447F.48D303CB@objectweb.org> <4101528C.203AF299@objectweb.org> <41050E88.C2B7222B@objectweb.org> <41053D4B.72EC119D@objectweb.org> <41079154.F610C940@objectweb.org> <4120AAA2.2CD1095D@objectweb.org> <4120CA7F.64F83B8A@objectweb.org> <4120E9FB.68BCB662@objectweb.org> <41237027.9F65B840@objectweb.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:05:11 +0200, Dominique DE VITO > > I have not put too much my hands into the JRex documentation. I have just read JRex : > "Compatible with AWT and Swing". Anyway, I don't see at this point problems as Eclipse > SWT could be integrated with Swing. > > So, I see JRex as Mozilla + a Java layer. In Eclipse WTP, we will support Mozilla as a > web browser for web rendering. If JRex brings more Java integration, a good move could > be to support JRex also. For XUL purposes for example (some people have already > expressed in the past their interest in XUL in eclipse.webtools newsgroup). > I was told that Swing cannot talk or interact with SWT. If I'm wrong, then that's great and lets do it that way then! > > > I don't know what you mean by web server. > > It was a typo-like, I was thinking about 'web browser' instead. > > > JRex needs to > > be built off of a Mozilla build. You can't have JRex on a server (like > > an applet). > > > > A better idea might be, if it's possible, to use the Eclipse Mozilla > > integration to use a specific Mozilla GRE. This GRE can be built so > > that all JavaScript is trusted, which would help us get around our > > security problem. > > > > Me personally, I'm starting to think we should build the IDE in XUL. I > > Yes, a pretty good idea. > > > > > know that eclipse provides a lot of features to make our life easier, > > but it seems strange to make a IDE without using the language it's > > meant to assist (Visual Studio -> .NET, NetBeans -> JFC, Eclipse -> > > SWT). Ryan was thinking of making a Java BE and a XUL FE which might > > be possible. > > > > One question: By Eclipse integration, do you mean a plugin or using > > SWT and other eclipse libraries for a GUI FE? > > I was thinking about Eclipse as a platform : > - on one hand, using edition capabilities of Eclipse, like XML edition capabilities > - on the other hand, using Mozilla rendering capabilities > and integration of both sides. > > Dominique > Yes, that defientely sounds like the way to go. I'll integrate that into my roadmap-to-be. -- R.J. Keller mozilla.org Help Systems Module Owner http://mozilla.org/projects/help-viewer http://rjkeller.blogspot.com/ http://mozcreator.mozdev.org From dominique.devito at thales-is.com Thu Aug 19 15:19:02 2004 From: dominique.devito at thales-is.com (Dominique de Vito) Date: Thu Aug 19 10:56:47 2004 Subject: [Mozcreator] Re: Eclipse XUL app-builder In-Reply-To: References: <1279BACE.467FFFBC@mail.gmail.com> <40FFD1A1.5070103@meer.net> <41012017.499A7902@objectweb.org> <41013518.4C8D3A11@objectweb.org> <4101447F.48D303CB@objectweb.org> <4101528C.203AF299@objectweb.org> <41050E88.C2B7222B@objectweb.org> <41053D4B.72EC119D@objectweb.org> <41079154.F610C940@objectweb.org> <4120AAA2.2CD1095D@objectweb.org> <4120CA7F.64F83B8A@objectweb.org> <4120E9FB.68BCB662@objectweb.org> <41237027.9F65B840@objectweb.org> Message-ID: <41249AB6.40005@thales-is.com> R.J. Keller wrote: >On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:05:11 +0200, Dominique DE VITO > > >>I have not put too much my hands into the JRex documentation. I have just read JRex : >>"Compatible with AWT and Swing". Anyway, I don't see at this point problems as Eclipse >>SWT could be integrated with Swing. >> >>So, I see JRex as Mozilla + a Java layer. In Eclipse WTP, we will support Mozilla as a >>web browser for web rendering. If JRex brings more Java integration, a good move could >>be to support JRex also. For XUL purposes for example (some people have already >>expressed in the past their interest in XUL in eclipse.webtools newsgroup). >> >> >> > >I was told that Swing cannot talk or interact with SWT. If I'm wrong, >then that's great and lets do it that way then! > > The Eclipse project FAQ says Swing/SWT integration is limited (http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/faq/eclipse-faq.html#plugin_7). But this document last modification is November 2002. An article (http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2004/02/18/eclipse.html) says improvements have been made for v 3.0. But the Eclipse web site search function does not give me online doco about improvements. So, I have asked my contacts in Eclipse foundation. Here is the result. There are the following snippets: http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.swt.snippets/src/org/eclipse/swt/snippets/Snippet135.java?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.swt.snippets/src/org/eclipse/swt/snippets/Snippet154.java?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.swt.snippets/src/org/eclipse/swt/snippets/Snippet155.java?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.swt.snippets/src/org/eclipse/swt/snippets/Snippet156.java?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup There is a plan item: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=37724 This accurately reflects the current state - see comment #5. I hope this will help you. Anyway, I don't know exactly JRex internal details but I guess it might not *use* Swing as I see rendering being done underneath by Mozilla. It is said in the JRex documentation : "Compatible with Swing". So, I guess JRex must expose some Swing-like API implemented by Mozilla. So, there might be no Swing class at all, just a Swing-like API, nothing more. So, may be even less problem that you can imagine. Regards, Dominique > > >>>I don't know what you mean by web server. >>> >>> >>It was a typo-like, I was thinking about 'web browser' instead. >> >> >> >>>JRex needs to >>>be built off of a Mozilla build. You can't have JRex on a server (like >>>an applet). >>> >>>A better idea might be, if it's possible, to use the Eclipse Mozilla >>>integration to use a specific Mozilla GRE. This GRE can be built so >>>that all JavaScript is trusted, which would help us get around our >>>security problem. >>> >>>Me personally, I'm starting to think we should build the IDE in XUL. I >>> >>> >>Yes, a pretty good idea. >> >> >> >>>know that eclipse provides a lot of features to make our life easier, >>>but it seems strange to make a IDE without using the language it's >>>meant to assist (Visual Studio -> .NET, NetBeans -> JFC, Eclipse -> >>>SWT). Ryan was thinking of making a Java BE and a XUL FE which might >>>be possible. >>> >>>One question: By Eclipse integration, do you mean a plugin or using >>>SWT and other eclipse libraries for a GUI FE? >>> >>> >>I was thinking about Eclipse as a platform : >>- on one hand, using edition capabilities of Eclipse, like XML edition capabilities >>- on the other hand, using Mozilla rendering capabilities >>and integration of both sides. >> >>Dominique >> >> >> > >Yes, that defientely sounds like the way to go. I'll integrate that >into my roadmap-to-be. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mozdev.org/pipermail/mozcreator/attachments/20040819/4f8d7645/attachment.htm From brendan at meer.net Thu Aug 19 13:28:25 2004 From: brendan at meer.net (Brendan Eich) Date: Fri Aug 20 10:03:21 2004 Subject: [Mozcreator] Re: Eclipse XUL app-builder In-Reply-To: <41237027.9F65B840@objectweb.org> References: <1279BACE.467FFFBC@mail.gmail.com> <40FFD1A1.5070103@meer.net> <41012017.499A7902@objectweb.org> <41013518.4C8D3A11@objectweb.org> <4101447F.48D303CB@objectweb.org> <4101528C.203AF299@objectweb.org> <41050E88.C2B7222B@objectweb.org> <41053D4B.72EC119D@objectweb.org> <41079154.F610C940@objectweb.org> <4120AAA2.2CD1095D@objectweb.org> <4120CA7F.64F83B8A@objectweb.org> <4120E9FB.68BCB662@objectweb.org> <41237027.9F65B840@objectweb.org> Message-ID: <4124FF59.1080503@meer.net> Hi, I'd like to bring Robert O'Callahan into this discussion. Rob works for IBM Research, is a long-time driver@mozilla.org, super-reviewer@mozilla.org, and layout module owner/peer. /be Dominique DE VITO wrote: >"R.J. Keller" wrote : > > > >>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:08:11 +0200, Dominique DE VITO >> >> >>>As said before, Eclipse WTP could help to bring faster a Mozilla IDE above >>>itself. One idea is to support JRex - The Java Browser Component - as a web >>>server, just like IE or Mozilla itself (planned Eclipse WTP features = 'Start, >>>stop and restart servers' + 'Run server processes in the Eclipse debugger' + >>>...). Then, a (limited) LiveConnect code example might show how to take advantage >>>of Eclipse+JRex integration, for example, for XUL page rendering. >>> >>>So, my first idea is to push, into Eclipse WTP, for JRex support ASAP. I will >>>keep you posted about that.. >>> >>>This is the kind of idea I was thinking about when talking (previously) about >>>"(2) the components and the technologies you are relying on (with web links)". >>>So, if you see other good idea, just drop me a line ! Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>>Regards, >>>Dominique De Vito >>>// Eclipse WTP Planning Comittee >>> >>> >>> >>> >>A couple of problems: JRex doesn't work with Eclipse. It requires a >>Swing backend. >> >> > >I have not put too much my hands into the JRex documentation. I have just read JRex : >"Compatible with AWT and Swing". Anyway, I don't see at this point problems as Eclipse >SWT could be integrated with Swing. > >So, I see JRex as Mozilla + a Java layer. In Eclipse WTP, we will support Mozilla as a >web browser for web rendering. If JRex brings more Java integration, a good move could >be to support JRex also. For XUL purposes for example (some people have already >expressed in the past their interest in XUL in eclipse.webtools newsgroup). > > > > >>I don't know what you mean by web server. >> >> > >It was a typo-like, I was thinking about 'web browser' instead. > > > >>JRex needs to >>be built off of a Mozilla build. You can't have JRex on a server (like >>an applet). >> >>A better idea might be, if it's possible, to use the Eclipse Mozilla >>integration to use a specific Mozilla GRE. This GRE can be built so >>that all JavaScript is trusted, which would help us get around our >>security problem. >> >>Me personally, I'm starting to think we should build the IDE in XUL. I >> >> > >Yes, a pretty good idea. > > > >>know that eclipse provides a lot of features to make our life easier, >>but it seems strange to make a IDE without using the language it's >>meant to assist (Visual Studio -> .NET, NetBeans -> JFC, Eclipse -> >>SWT). Ryan was thinking of making a Java BE and a XUL FE which might >>be possible. >> >>One question: By Eclipse integration, do you mean a plugin or using >>SWT and other eclipse libraries for a GUI FE? >> >> > >I was thinking about Eclipse as a platform : >- on one hand, using edition capabilities of Eclipse, like XML edition capabilities >- on the other hand, using Mozilla rendering capabilities >and integration of both sides. > >Dominique > > > > >>-- >>R.J. Keller >>mozilla.org Help Systems Module Owner >> >>http://mozilla.org/projects/help-viewer >>http://rjkeller.blogspot.com/ >>http://mozcreator.mozdev.org >> >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mozdev.org/pipermail/mozcreator/attachments/20040819/cc7bc179/attachment.htm From robert at ocallahan.org Thu Aug 19 23:55:11 2004 From: robert at ocallahan.org (Robert O'Callahan) Date: Fri Aug 20 10:03:21 2004 Subject: [Mozcreator] XUL IDE and Eclipse Message-ID: <4125680F.1090201@ocallahan.org> Hi. Brendan told me you've had some discussions about whether to use Eclipse as the basis of a XUL IDE. Let me mention a few things --- apart from being a major Gecko layout hacker in my spare time, my day job is working on tools and languages at IBM Research, some of which involves Eclipse. Apart from the Web Tools Project which Dominique mentioned, Eclipse has a lot of stuff that's useful for IDE building. One of the big chunks is a framework for managing project resources like files, JARs, etc. You can have different types of editors for each resource, you can store metadata (like build preferences) anywhere in the resource tree, there's a compare framework to do diffs of resources, export and import them, etc. Eclipse offers very nice integration with version control systems such as CVS and others. Another piece that's very powerful is the editor framework. It makes it pretty easy to do syntax highlighting, fancy margin annotations, autocomplete, hooks for incremental builds when you change a small part of a text file, code templates, and much more. Mozilla's editor framework is great for WYSIWYG XML/HTML documents but it doesn't provide any help with editing structured text such as source code. You could burn weeks just trying to get Mozilla Composer to do on the fly syntax highlighting. There is also an Eclipse subproject, the Visual Editor Project, that is building a GUI builder toolset. Parts of that project could probably be adopted for a XUL GUI builder. Apart from the Gecko SWT widget which you already know about, Javier Pedemonte at IBM is working on making all XPCOM interfaces accessible from Java, so we'll have pretty deep integration between Eclipse and Gecko. Of course, if you want to connect up to other languages and tools then Eclipse is a great platform for that. Lastly, a meta-comment: I know I'm always tempted to build new frameworks myself from scratch, because it feels like you have more control and it's more fun to write code than to learn someone else's big framework. When I start fresh it's also easy to imagine that I'll do a better job of avoiding mistakes and bloat that the last project. But building on something like Eclipse has its advantages. You get the benefits of someone else's ongoing investment; in this case, a team continually developing and improving the Eclipse core. Eclipse also has mindshare advantages; lots of users, and IBM's investing a lot of money in getting universities to use Eclipse for both teaching and research and development. And I don't think Eclipse is that hard to learn; there are a huge number of plugins out there for all kinds of things, with source code. Lastly, even if you end up not using Eclipse, I urge you to study it. The guys who built it have a long history of building IDEs and know more about that subject than you or I. You'd learn a lot from them, and whatever you do build will be better for it. If you have any other questions about Eclipse I can answer them for you or find someone who can. Rob -- Robert O'Callahan "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners-of whom I am the worst. (1 Timothy 1:14-16)