XUL Weblog Comments

Peter: Trick 17 with XUL and IE

nospam@example.com (Peter) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:09:24 +0100

Sasha.

I installed XULRunner and registered the included mozctlx.dll. I can get the Mozilla control to render XUL from a remote URL as you've shown, but IE gives 'Unspecified Error' when I try to access resources locally in the chrome:
e.g. Browser1.Navigate("chrome://path/to/some.xul").

Did you somehow get this working? If so, what's the trick? And where does the control look for installed chrome resources. Am I running into some security restriction that prevents the mozctlx.dll control from accessing 'chrome://...' URLs?

Chander Kochar: Testing XUL applications

nospam@example.com (Chander Kochar) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:48:24 +0100

Hi Sascha,

We have an .xul application, used to create a database. It can be opened in firefox if I give the path chrome://..../workers.xul
The problem is IDE doesn't record the enteries i make? Is there something I am missing or is there any way to use IDE to test the application?

If not, could someone please suggest how i can test a .xul application?

Thanks

Avinash Prasad: Trick 17 with XUL and IE

nospam@example.com (Avinash Prasad) — Wed, 23 May 2007 00:13:14 +0200

Hi Sascha.

Your weblog above was very informative. I have been working with some apps I created in Firefox and have now gotten the need to port them to IE. While searching for quick solutions, I came across this page and am fascinated by the possibilities of running a Gecko engine within IE.

I did manage to install the files and was able to open up a number of pages containing XUL within my IE7 browser. Most of the DOM events worked too as well as the calls to some XmlHttp requests I was making in my apps. However, I came across a problem in a few pages that rendered Flash. The browser crashed whenever it tried to open any pages that had flash (test www.youtube.com). I was wondering whether this was a known bug or something anyone knew how to fix. I also noticed that prompts and dialog boxes crashed the browser at times.

I would appreciate any help I could get regarding these issues. Thanks again for your blog entry and this promises to save me a lot of time and effort during the application development process.

Regards.
Avinash

Ross Kendall: SQL Console in Mozilla

nospam@example.com (Ross Kendall) — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:47:26 +0100

Thanks for the helpful post.

I have been in the process of looking at the alternatives for cross-platform open-source client-server application development, and Mozilla with the SQL extension looks quite promising. (also looking at wxWidgets and Mono)

There doesn't seem to be many people working with this technology, which is a shame because it looks to have a lot of potential for small business applications.

Do you use the SQL extension for client projects much (or at all)? If so, what do you think of the stagnant state of it's development? (Do you worry it might stop working with new versions of Mozilla?)

The artist formerly known as Arzt: Bridging Worlds

nospam@example.com (The artist formerly known as Arzt) — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:48:48 +0100

Awesome Sascha, thanks for that hint! <3

Kev: XUL in IE

nospam@example.com (Kev) — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:54:39 +0100

Has anyone successfully run an XUL app on IE this way? A year later, sounds like it's time for an update.

Michael Lee: Solving the Javascript include problem

nospam@example.com (Michael Lee) — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:01:52 +0100

Hi all,
Looks like this discussion fizzled a while back. If it's still an issue or a better solution is still needed take a look at AJILE over at:

htp://ajile.iskitz.com/

It's a JavaScript library created solely for the purpose of dynamically loading/importing JavaScript modules. It focuses on simplifying and automating the include process and makes it easy to define script dependencies without depending on the XMLHttpRequest object.

-Michael

drive-by poster: XUL in IE

nospam@example.com (drive-by poster) — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:15:22 +0100

Did anyone ever make headway on embedding a XUL motor in an ActiveX control for use in IE?

Wolfram Kriesing: Solving the Javascript include problem

nospam@example.com (Wolfram Kriesing) — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:44:20 +0200

The dojo approach to speed issues and also for the require() problem is nicely explained here: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ#Performance

heath: XUL vs. AJAX

nospam@example.com (heath) — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 06:43:49 +0200

has anyone got a win32 version to actually work with mozilla or firefox for the sql?

Im trying desperately to hook up a xul interface to a sql database (either sqlite or mysql) and all the ones available either dont work or are not built for win32 I wish I could build mozilla myself, but Im not sufficiently capable in that arena. Anyone have any ideas?

Sebs: Solving the Javascript include problem

nospam@example.com (Sebs) — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:08:33 +0200

using php a simple include in the template can help you too.

p.s. more xulblog please

Sascha Schumann: Solving the Javascript include problem

nospam@example.com (Sascha Schumann) — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 10:14:06 +0100

XMLHttpRequest is suitable for highly dynamic processes -- I am not positive that loading JS source files is such a dynamic process. I view the script-tag more as some kind of linking process where you statically bind a resource into your program, similar to C.

In the case of Dojo, it would probably be more efficient to load all abstractions in one big sweep and instantiate the correct one at run-time -- rather than starting a series of synchronous (slow and expensive especially in Mozilla) XMLHttpRequests after the page has loaded.

As such I am convinced that following the Dojo approach won't lead to better applications -- only to slower, less portable ones.

Wolfram Kriesing: Solving the Javascript include problem

nospam@example.com (Wolfram Kriesing) — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 18:01:48 +0100

Yep, I am looking very much into the dojo source code and as I stated here: http://wolfram.kriesing.de/blog/index.php/2006/dojo-first-hugs I agree with you, dojo is not final.
But it is on a good way, imho. As soon as IE7 will be out and supporting XmlHttpRequest natively (not via ActiveX) the loading using this function should be less of an issue.

Sascha Schumann: Solving the Javascript include problem

nospam@example.com (Sascha Schumann) — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:45:38 +0100

Well, the dojo-interface looks nice. But I suggest you take a look beneath the shiny hood.

Dojo violates the "degrade nicely" paradigm. If the user agent does not support XMLHttpRequest or if it is deactivated, your required scripts won't load. Instead, Dojo will happily throw an exception in your face.

Add to that that dojo's cache buster will very likely render your static Javascript files uncacheable.

Also, I suggest taking a look at the Dojo source code in general -- the files I looked at need some cleanup urgently. The current version (0.2.2) shows quite clearly that Dojo is far from being release-quality.

Wolfram Kriesing: Solving the Javascript include problem

nospam@example.com (Wolfram Kriesing) — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:25:44 +0100

This problem of including JS files was very nicely by dojo. Thats actually what one wants, see http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/dojo.html#root-dojo-methods
There you can do stuff like
dojo.require("my.string");
a nice side effect is that you get a nice, kind of module/namespace handling. well done imho, worth a try.
_And_ dojo is not targeted to client side js only, so using it for xul should work quite well.