New Gecko package
wine-devel at kievinfo.com
Thu May 24 20:36:28 CDT 2007
Jacek Caban wrote:
> Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
>>>> this works fine with Firefox.
>>> It needs some support from Gecko embedder (MSHTML in our case) and I
>>> haven't worked on it yet (with exception of built in alert pop-up).
>> You mean that what Wine has now uses gecko for just HTML rendering and
>> nothing else?! That you are pretty much rewriting the whole browser from
>> the scratch?!! How is that better then what we had before?!!!
> Well, it would be perfect if we used it only for rendering... but I
> don't think we'll ever reach that state. Just take a look at how deep an
> API may meddle with a HTML document. In case of pop-ups Gecko asks the
> embedder to create the window. It's not like IE API, which is a complete
> browser. Pop-up window is, in fact, a new IE window. Gecko isn't
> anything like a complete web browser, it's just an engine. The embedder
> creates a window and integrates it with its other windows. In case of
> Wine it's not trivial, as this new window should be, in fact, an IE
> window with its associated MSHTML object etc.
So you want to say that we will never have pages with embedded
>> The impression you gave about a year ago that Mozilla active-X controls
>> needed number of things modified, but other then that it worked fine.
> And my impression was that people would like to use apps like Picasa and
> Steam out of box with perspectives of getting much more instead of
> having a lots of "won't fix" bugs.
Indeed they would. Only I would say picasa to steam ratio would be
1-to-100. And btw only most rudimentary things work in both! Steam
worked _perfectly_ before. And I'm sure would still worked. But now, you
can't buy stuff, you can't open screen-shots (because they are popups)
you don't see MOTO when joining servers, lots of things do not work. So
I would use Steam as an example on the contrary.
>> Here I see only most rudimentary things work, and everything else would
>> probably never work. And Wine is open for stream of never ending
>> security issues, that so far no one even risen.
> Well, if you call apps like Outlook a rudimentary thing... Sure, there
Yes they are! Most e-mails don't have anything even close to most simple
> still is a lot to do, but with correct architecture we can support more
> complex apps. Mozilla ActiveX control will never allow us to run
> programs like Outlook. And it's not the only example. Pop-ups, in
> particular, arn't too interesting as apps that embed HTML documents
> don't usually use them.
Ok if we can support more apps, then why aren't we? Do you have a todo
list? Or at least a list of what needs to be done before we can open a
stinking popup? Or what all needs to be done to get JavaScrip working?
>> I hate to sound negative about things here, but how hard will it be to
>> put things back the way they were before? Or at least make it possible
>> to use Mozilla ActiveX controls instead of wine_gecko?
> It'd be quite simple, but don't count on my support in it. I very much
> disagree with such ideas and I prefer concentrating on improving MSHTML
> rather than looking for ugly workarounds. Mozilla ActiveX control may
> work only for WebBrowser control but it *can't* work with MSHTML.
The thing is, I personally, as well as most users want things *to work*.
Users don't care how proper the architecture is. With Mozilla ActiveX
things used to and still does work! But now Wine can't use it, because
you removed such possibility. What's wrong with having two alternative
implementation? Let users decide what they want - Picasa, Outlook or Steam.
More information about the wine-devel