Re: [tdf-discuss] UI proposal

Povilas Kanapickas, 22-10-2010 06:55:
> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Carlos Jose Lenarts Ramis<
> godaxen@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >  2010/10/19 Gianluca Turconi<ml@letturefantastiche.com>
> >
> >  >  In data 19 ottobre 2010 alle ore 14:35:45, Carlos Jose Lenarts Ramis<
> >  >  elohe@users.sourceforge.net>  ha scritto:
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >   If wee want a really customizable UI the best way is to go to something
> >  >>  like
> >  >>  Mocilla XULL adapted to LibO
> >  >>
> >  >
> >  >  I know people who would kill because of XUL slowness in Moz UI. :)
> >  >
> >  The slowness is not from XUL as user interface is that all the application
> >  is written in XUL+JavaScript.
> Isn't it better to use a native toolkit and to load the theme on runtime? Of
> course, some customization capabilities would be lost, but we won't be
> adding rather large dependence of XULRunner (which is, at least on my
> system, as large as entire widget toolkit).

Regarding XUL slowness, be aware that on the client side, XUL itself is 
just an XML used to describe the interface. You can access the interface 
using C, C++ or another language that its interface definition language 
supports. That means we could make most of the intensive tasks on C++.
But there are other issues with XUL performance, as CSS rules. The rules 
have to be much optimized to avoid losing performance.
Anyway, using XPCOM and XUL at the same task can kill minds.

VCL could be redesigned. I don't know its internals to say whether would 
be easier to redesign or start using native toolkits.
XUL uses native toolkits to render, FWIW. But the QT port is not stable.



--
E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted