« Whose choice? | Main | 64-bit Flash Player for Linux »
August 24, 2007
WebRunner, XULRunner
WebRunner, XULRunner: Seems like Firefox 3 can be passed an initialization file when started by command line, with the result that it starts up as *your* interface, rather than the viewer's normal Firefox layout. Mark Finkle has the source post here. Key phrase: "firefox -app application.ini". This is WebRunner, where your XUL is rendered by the enduser's current Firefox 3 engine, as opposed to the previous XULRunner, where you distributed a known playback engine packaged with your presentation and logic layers. More from Ryan Paul at Ars Technica, Mike Shaver, Asa Dotzler. If you're comfortable writing XUL/JS, then it seems like Firefox 3 will let you publish without including a runtime, by running your instructions atop the enduser's Mozilla runtime. I'm a little skeptical, because I haven't seen many develop in XUL the past eight years, and because it took me a couple of reads through all those blogposts to boil their message down, and there's ad-hominem in that recent "Fear of AIR?" thread -- three warning flags. But if they can pull it off, that's all to the good... the more options, the better. Runs XUL in a shared runtime.
Posted by JohnDowdell at August 24, 2007 09:19 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mtadmin/mt-tb.cgi/9014
Comments
WebRunner is not just a XUL runtime. You could easily launch with a chromeless window and a standards web-based application, or even with a web+flash app. The nifty and recent change is that you can also launch XUL apps from Firefox pretty easily. Shaver's post distills it pretty well. There are basically 4 options with the Mozilla platform. You can create standard web-based, browser-based applications in Firefox. You can extend Firefox with add-ons. You can also create web-based, but not really browser based, applications using WebRunner with no browser UI and nifty features like desktop launchers, etc. In addition, you can create XUL application that either carry a full runtime with them (XULRunner) or that leverage an existing Firefox install for the runtime.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler at August 24, 2007 11:24 PM
Mozilla needs to do a little re-branding and marketing to get this to take off. Great technology, but let's face it, Adobe can leverage Flash and PDF's ubiquity to push out just about anything.
Again, a theme I've noticed: open-source struggles to go mainstream because it relies on word of mouth from their community...which, no offense, isn't always the most gifted at communicating, especially with those outside of it.
Ah, therein lies the challenge, how do we take these great technologies out to the masses, if no one knows how, or has the means, to market it?
Posted by: PaulC at August 27, 2007 09:56 AM
PaulC, with the exception of Firefox add-ons, these other approaches are still experimental and not really ready for a full marketing push. If and when they are, I'm sure we'll be able to get the word out.
Also, are you sure that the open-source Mozilla project has not been able to communicate about Firefox? Can you point to any other organization with an end-user product that has taken significant market-share from Microsoft when they had a dominant monopoly position? Just a few years ago, IE had 98% of the browser market and Firefox has taken about 20% from them worldwide. I'd say that, no offense, we've done a fine job at communicating, especially with those outside of open source.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler at August 27, 2007 01:13 PM