Webclient 2.0 Status
Ed Burns
I've finally been able to free up some time to work on Webclient for
the
2.0 release. My main goal in this release is to make all the existing
features really work correctly with mozilla 1.4. My secondary goal is
to make as many features as possible work with Internet Explorer.
My first task is to re-design the integration layer between mozilla
and
java. The existing code was written three years ago and much of
mozilla
has changed. I'm deeply indebted to the webclient community for
keeping
webclient running as it is.
To be able to conduct this re-design, I'm surveying the TestGtkEmbed
and
mfcembed test applications. I've produced UML diagrams which can be
found at
<http://www.mozilla.org/projects/blackwood/webclient/design/20030809-analysis-of-mozilla-embedding-samples.zargo>.
This is a "Poseiden for UML" file.
I can't announce any kind of schedule yet, but I'll keep you posted
here.
Ed
Kyle Yuan
This is a great news!
The first question came in my mind is - will you still use the
in-process architecture in 2.0? If you will, the java-plugins won't be
able to run on Windows.
BTW, I hope I'm not the only one who can not see the zargo file, are
there any html files available for the new design?
-Kyle
Ed Burns
> Hi, Ed
>
> This is a great news!
>
> The first question came in my mind is - will you still use the
> in-process architecture in 2.0? If you will, the java-plugins won't be
> able to run on Windows.
What do you suggest?
> BTW, I hope I'm not the only one who can not see the zargo file, are
> there any html files available for the new design?
No, you have to download Poseiden for UML CE from
<http://www.gentleware.com/products/download.php3>. Then use wget or
some other tool to save the zargo file, which you can open with
Poseiden.
Ed
Kyle Yuan
> kyle...@sun.com (Kyle Yuan) wrote in message news:<3F36F330...@sun.com>...
> > Hi, Ed
> >
> > This is a great news!
> >
> > The first question came in my mind is - will you still use the
> > in-process architecture in 2.0? If you will, the java-plugins won't be
> > able to run on Windows.
>
> What do you suggest?
I prefer the out-process architecture. There are at least 3 advantages
we can get from that:
1) java-plugin can work;
2) more stable - if the browser crashed, it won't affect java app;
3) simpler implementation -
a) you do not need much native code, all browser-related logic can
live in the C/C++ process;
b) you can just use the mfcembed/testgtkembed code (with a little
changes) for the most native embedded browser implementation. They
have already done many important features which we haven't yet, such
as Prompt service, Print service, New window service, Tooltip, Context
menu.
The only one disadvantage is: the control of interprocess
communication, such as socket, is more complicated than the JNI calls.
I've already made an implementation of this in our WebBrowser project.
>
> > BTW, I hope I'm not the only one who can not see the zargo file, are
> > there any html files available for the new design?
>
> No, you have to download Poseiden for UML CE from
> <http://www.gentleware.com/products/download.php3>. Then use wget or
> some other tool to save the zargo file, which you can open with
> Poseiden.
>
> Ed
Thanks. It works.
Kyle
Ed Burns
KY> in-process architecture in 2.0? If you will, the java-plugins won't
KY> be able to run on Windows.
EB> What do you suggest?
KY> I prefer the out-process architecture. There are at least 3 advantages
KY> we can get from that:
KY> 1) java-plugin can work;
KY> 2) more stable - if the browser crashed, it won't affect java app;
Do you mean that you could re-start the browser without re-starting the
KY> java app?
KY> 3) simpler implementation -
KY> a) you do not need much native code, all browser-related logic can
KY> live in the C/C++ process;
KY> b) you can just use the mfcembed/testgtkembed code (with a little
KY> changes) for the most native embedded browser implementation. They
KY> have already done many important features which we haven't yet, such
KY> as Prompt service, Print service, New window service, Tooltip, Context
KY> menu.
I like the sound of that. Those two demos are well architected
KY> The only one disadvantage is: the control of interprocess
KY> communication, such as socket, is more complicated than the JNI calls.
How about focus. Does focus work as expected on Win32 and X?
KY> I've already made an implementation of this in our WebBrowser project.
That's great, I'll contact you out of band.
Ed