Development :
K-Meleon Web Browser Forum
I have a XUL app that I developed with Firebird that I'm doing to be distributing on CD. It works fine, but Firebird is horribly slow loading from CD (~1 minute). I'd like to switch over to K-Meleon for my app, but I'm having some problems getting certain features working. Specifically, I cannot get K-Meleon to display just a root browser window to contain the app (even after as much hand-editing as possible, it still wants to show at least the status bar and throbber bar), I cannot get the app title to display in the title bar (just says K-Meleon), and I cannot get the browser window to resize correctly when opening images in new windows.
Has anyone in here done any XUL development with K-Meleon, or at least know any technical details relating to K-Melon's support for XUL? Can you share any insight here? Can you point me somewhere else for additional information.
Also, anyone have any suggestions about the above problems? Those are the only 3 real showstoppers at this point, and I really would like to switch over to K-Meleon for future development as well, since it's so quick! Is better support for XUL maybe one of the new features of 0.8? Thanks.
No no no no, we don't want anything to do with XUL since this is a native Win32 application and most people want it to stay that way.
nitro322,
It will probably be better for you to make your app a standalone program if you want it to load faster. You might want to investigate why firebird loads so slow from CDs and maybe help the firebird team to improve its speed.
I agree with basic. I'm making an XUL app using MozillaFirebird, and that is what I'm currently doing.
Just make a shortcut to Mozilla/Firebird like:
MozillaFirebird.exe -chrome chrome://content/yourext/yourext.xul
Or alternately set the pref:
user_pref("browser.chromeURL", "chrome://content/yourext/yourext.xul");
Shelumi`El
Jordan
S.D.G
*uck the XUL! To nitro322: If You want use XUL, feel free use SHITZILLA or some other bloated crap. The main KM advantage is to be LIGHT browser *WITHOUT XUL*.
Wow - a little hostile? Somebody at Mozilla beat you up or stomp your cat or something?
I keep checking on k-meleon hoping to see that development has picked up, but so far it has seemed pretty static, much like its OS X counterpart, Camino.
And BTW, the new Mozillas and Firebirds are quite nice, actually, especially if you have a decent machine to run them on. I don't see any problem with exploring and testing multiple browsers, and if you want to spout vitriol at anything it would seem IE is a better target....
Cheers!
Well I don't believe nowadays, especially with Firebird around, that XUL is bloated as much as what it used to be. Of course the Mozilla suite "SeaMonkey" still is, but the future development path seems to indicate a leaner browser is in the works. Firebird still has a long way to go though in order to compete with K-meleon in slimness stakes though. ;-)
K-Meleon development related discussions.
XUL support?
Posted by:
nitro322
Date: August 08, 2003 02:19AM
I have a XUL app that I developed with Firebird that I'm doing to be distributing on CD. It works fine, but Firebird is horribly slow loading from CD (~1 minute). I'd like to switch over to K-Meleon for my app, but I'm having some problems getting certain features working. Specifically, I cannot get K-Meleon to display just a root browser window to contain the app (even after as much hand-editing as possible, it still wants to show at least the status bar and throbber bar), I cannot get the app title to display in the title bar (just says K-Meleon), and I cannot get the browser window to resize correctly when opening images in new windows.
Has anyone in here done any XUL development with K-Meleon, or at least know any technical details relating to K-Melon's support for XUL? Can you share any insight here? Can you point me somewhere else for additional information.
Also, anyone have any suggestions about the above problems? Those are the only 3 real showstoppers at this point, and I really would like to switch over to K-Meleon for future development as well, since it's so quick! Is better support for XUL maybe one of the new features of 0.8? Thanks.
Re: XUL support?
Posted by:
void main()
Date: August 08, 2003 04:21AM
No no no no, we don't want anything to do with XUL since this is a native Win32 application and most people want it to stay that way.
Re: XUL support?
Posted by:
basic
Date: August 08, 2003 02:06PM
nitro322,
It will probably be better for you to make your app a standalone program if you want it to load faster. You might want to investigate why firebird loads so slow from CDs and maybe help the firebird team to improve its speed.
Re: XUL support?
Posted by:
MonkeeSage
Date: August 08, 2003 04:02PM
I agree with basic. I'm making an XUL app using MozillaFirebird, and that is what I'm currently doing.
Just make a shortcut to Mozilla/Firebird like:
MozillaFirebird.exe -chrome chrome://content/yourext/yourext.xul
Or alternately set the pref:
user_pref("browser.chromeURL", "chrome://content/yourext/yourext.xul");
Shelumi`El
Jordan
S.D.G
Re: XUL support?
Posted by:
j353840
Date: September 09, 2003 07:56PM
*uck the XUL! To nitro322: If You want use XUL, feel free use SHITZILLA or some other bloated crap. The main KM advantage is to be LIGHT browser *WITHOUT XUL*.
Re: XUL support?
Posted by:
Son of Spam
Date: September 19, 2003 04:24PM
Wow - a little hostile? Somebody at Mozilla beat you up or stomp your cat or something?
I keep checking on k-meleon hoping to see that development has picked up, but so far it has seemed pretty static, much like its OS X counterpart, Camino.
And BTW, the new Mozillas and Firebirds are quite nice, actually, especially if you have a decent machine to run them on. I don't see any problem with exploring and testing multiple browsers, and if you want to spout vitriol at anything it would seem IE is a better target....
Cheers!
Re: XUL support?
Posted by:
Al.
Date: September 19, 2003 09:26PM
Well I don't believe nowadays, especially with Firebird around, that XUL is bloated as much as what it used to be. Of course the Mozilla suite "SeaMonkey" still is, but the future development path seems to indicate a leaner browser is in the works. Firebird still has a long way to go though in order to compete with K-meleon in slimness stakes though. ;-)
English