|
|
| Line 25: |
Line 25: |
|
| |
|
| Bosky101: could webrunner have an inbuilt class library with decent system access documentation. or the ability for webrunner to plug'n'play with js libraries like jquery /dojo that would be great. in particular ,in extending the vector and graphic capabilites like for svg,effects and so on. The reason i point this out is that if you check out adobe flex, the reason they can take it offline,online with such ease and give such a rich nature is because of a bunch of classes theyve built. infact when coding in flex, these classes are not even closed - it's just there ,coded up nicely and available. i think webrunner needs an inbuilt bunch of js classes OR atleast the ability to plug-in js libraries which can then be accessed specifically for webrunner apps. | | Bosky101: could webrunner have an inbuilt class library with decent system access documentation. or the ability for webrunner to plug'n'play with js libraries like jquery /dojo that would be great. in particular ,in extending the vector and graphic capabilites like for svg,effects and so on. The reason i point this out is that if you check out adobe flex, the reason they can take it offline,online with such ease and give such a rich nature is because of a bunch of classes theyve built. infact when coding in flex, these classes are not even closed - it's just there ,coded up nicely and available. i think webrunner needs an inbuilt bunch of js classes OR atleast the ability to plug-in js libraries which can then be accessed specifically for webrunner apps. |
|
| |
| [[User:20after4|20after4]]: I don't think it would be difficult to include some JS Libraries like Bosky suggests. It might not make sense, however, to bundle them with webrunner. There are so many to choose from that it would be impossible to satisfy every developer without including several libraries, if that happened then maintaining and updating the 3rd party code would become an issue. I really doubt that the lack of a built in high-level api will be a problem. One of the best features of Mozilla's platform is the rich extensibility that is provided through chrome extensions and I think that will alleviate the need for extensive built in libraries. I do think that there should be some webrunner-specific APIs (perhaps borrowed from fuel) which could make webrunner into a respectable development platform in it's own right. With a few common APIs covered (in a mostly Firefox-compatible way) then individual apps can install their own JavaScript libraries or share a library that is installed as a webrunner extension.
| |
|
| |
| I would also like to comment on a slightly related topic: Many Firefox extensions are fully featured applications that simply deploy on top of the Mozilla platform and use Firefox as their runtime. With the news of Firefox deploying a reusable runtime I think that some of these extensions could (and should) be moved into webrunner. I love Firefox, don't get me wrong, but it's not the right place for some of the extensions that I have seen (and some that I use.) The more elaborate extensions that I install the more problems I have with Firefox stability and memory consumption. In the not-rare-enough occasion that Firefox crashes, it takes several applications with it because they run in-process with the browser. For simple browser features, regular extensions make since. For more complex application behavior I think we should be using webrunner or totally custom xul applications instead. For this reason I think that something like fuel should be encouraged and utilized even outside of Firefox. A common api could create an easy path to port an extension into a stand-alone app - at lease for the extensions that simply install a button in the browser which then launches the app into a mostly stand-alone window.
| |