The first Mono beta release
The first Mono beta release
Posted May 5, 2004 18:08 UTC (Wed) by rmini (subscriber, #4991)In reply to: The first Mono beta release by mmarq
Parent article: The first Mono beta release
In the mean time, IMO, what Open Source needs is a IDL, some way like XAML,... and for the first time in recent history Open Source has the possibility of "EMBRACE & EXTEND" Microsoft and define a XML based IDL that will build the interfaces of the next wave of "Distributed Applications" fullfiling the promesses of CORBA and OPEN DOC... and who knows!?,... perhaps XUL+ or XUL2 could be a superset of XUL and XAML, and also a CORBA IDL !!...
You mean something like WSDL and SOAP? Not the same exact thing, but you can get the same results. WSDL needs a little work (too complex, for starters), IMHO, but the idea and groundwork are there.
Posted May 5, 2004 22:45 UTC (Wed)
by simon_kitching (guest, #4874)
[Link] (5 responses)
A fair bit of XAML is very similar in concept to Mozilla XUL - just an updting of the HTML standard to the 21st century. These tags should not be very difficult for Mozilla + potentially other browsers to support. I don't see much threat here (any differing opinions?). The major threat seems to me to be the ease that .NET code can be referenced from xaml documents via the <bind> tag, resulting in the ability for users to access a website URL, and end up with a real application running locally on their PC (with the .net code downloaded over the network). The closest thing I see to the above functionality is Java WebStart. You "run" a URL, and the application at that URL is automatically downloaded to your client machine and runs locally, with the ability to communicate with the server it was downloaded from as/when the application desires. Java WebStart, of course, is cross-platform and cross-os. And because of Java's "sandbox" security model, it is safe(ish) to run applications from remote sources; their priveleges can be limited. I believe that XAML will use the ActiveX-style "signing" approach instead, where you either trust the whole app or don't, leading to large and well-known companies having a major edge over smaller companies. Or does .NET have a sandbox security model too? If only java tool designers could just get their act together and make use of the new "long-term serialization" feature of java1.4 which now allows GUIs to be designed using drag-and-drop tools and saved into xml format (unlike the existing "code-generation" approach). As I said previously, XAML's presentation tags should be no big deal to emulate. And Mono is going great on providing a .NET runtime. Of course there is still the issue that any downloaded assemblies will be using the Microsoft .NET libraries. While the .NET runtime and the c# language are official standards, I'm not sure to what extend the libraries are. Certainly Windows.Forms won't be. Will xaml documents commonly contain .net assemblies that reference the Windows.Forms assembly? I don't know...
Posted May 6, 2004 9:36 UTC (Thu)
by hansl (subscriber, #5086)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 6, 2004 9:48 UTC (Thu)
by simon_kitching (guest, #4874)
[Link]
There are vast chunks of Windows functionality missing from Wine (mostly because Microsoft don't provide documentation for many public APIs). And chunks of Wine missing from the current Windows.Forms wrappers. And Microsoft can exploit this if they feel like, just as they did against DRDOS. If the world moves to XAML, and *if* XAML apps commonly depend on Windows.Forms, then I think non-windows platforms are all in deep trouble. But I don't know if this is indeed the case - can anyone say what dependencies xaml apps encountered on the web in a few years time will have?
Posted May 6, 2004 15:35 UTC (Thu)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link] (1 responses)
No, but if you know of a page explaining the similarities and differences between XUL and XAML, that would be appreciated. I've read various postings here and there comparing the two, but it would be nice to read a more comprehensive explanation. I'm sure there's one out there, I just haven't found it yet...
Posted May 7, 2004 9:29 UTC (Fri)
by rwmj (subscriber, #5474)
[Link]
http://lwn.net/Articles/80684/
Since that posting, I've bought and read the RAD for Mozilla book, upgraded
to Mozilla 1.7RC1, and gone
back to the application I was designing. I actually stand by most of the
things I said originally. I have found that XUL is:
I like to think I'm a pretty experienced programmer - I've been doing
programming in many different languages for 20 years or more - and if I
can't write a simple XUL-based editor after two weeks, then there is
something deeply wrong with the environment.
Rich.
Posted May 6, 2004 16:07 UTC (Thu)
by allesfresser (guest, #216)
[Link]
These tags should not be very difficult for Mozilla + potentially other browsers to support. I don't see much threat here (any differing opinions?). If the XAML schema is patented, it would be impossible for anybody else to implement it. And it seems a no-brainer that this is exactly Microsoft's plan, for the express purpose of once again using their monopoly power to strongarm their way into forcing people to use their 'standard'.
I see no resemblance between XAML and WSDL at all.Where is the XAML threat?
Where is the XAML threat?
> Certainly Windows.Forms won't be. Will xaml documents
> commonly contain .net assemblies that reference the
> Windows.Forms assembly? I don't know...
Mono has an implementation of Windows.Forms based on Wine.
Yes, but I have my doubts this will ever be reliable. Where is the XAML threat?
A fair bit of XAML is very similar in concept to Mozilla XUL - just an updting of the HTML standard to the 21st century. These tags should not be very difficult for Mozilla + potentially other browsers to support. I don't see much threat here (any differing opinions?).Where is the XAML threat?
I've posted before on the subject of XUL's shortcomings:
XUL will fail because it's too hard to get into
Where is the XAML threat?