I'm working on a rewrite of some of the rendering internals of an existing WebGL application. All of a sudden, the WEBGL_depth_texture extension is no longer available within my rendering context (which is inconvenient, as I need it for this particular application).
If I open up antother tab in the same browser (Chrome 58.0.3029.110 (64-bit)) and look at the WebGL Caps Viewer (http://www.geeks3d.com/webgl/), I see the proper set of 24 extensions including WEBGL_depth_texture.
In my own application, I now have a meagre subset of 9 extensions available to me.
I obviously broke something, but how do I investigate what is wrong?
I was running Ben Vanik's WebGL Inspector. Which is an excellent debugging tool for WebGL, but as it takes over the WebGL context (as such debuggers need to do in order to function) it does mess with the available extensions.
Related
I'm working on a software that includes 3D graphics. Those are massive enough, so I decided to use OpenGL to keep a quite fluent animation. I selected THREE.js graphic library (WebGL).
Reading the html through a Web browser works very well : WebGL functions are recognized. I did it on my desktop (Win32/Firefox17, please do not judge me on my configuration !) and on a Nexus 10 (Android 4.3, FF24 and FF25Beta, tried with Chrome30Beta but no joy...). But I need to access native data, like the file system, to get informations for my program. So I wrapped my code with WL, and deployed it as an app on my Nexus 10... And so disappeared the WebGL capability... :(
So I looked for a reason to that :
I found on the IBM site two different ideas : in one way, I understand that a JS engine is embedded, in another that WL uses the engine of the default Web browser of the tablet (what I understood the first time)...
Let's be precise with the different engines : On the Nexus, FFs have obviously Gecko engines, Chrome30 is a Blink (webkit-like, version 537.36). Those are the ones detected by window.navigator.useragent as I read directly in the browser, no surprise. In the Eclipse/WL preview, I got different interpreters, depending the browser I selected, FF or IE (not Safari, I don't have it installed), but not the one from my desktop (the ones used are even older than my own FF...). But, when I detect the one used in the app (after wrapping in an apk), it returns an AppleWebkit 534.30/Worklight/6.0...
Maybe I'm wrong (tell me), but if 'Worklight' is in the version of the engine, and if webkit is used even when I suppress Chrome from my tablet (the version is different, but who knows..), I wonder that, for this app, as it's configured, the engine is embedded by Cordova or WL.
If it is so, I agree it allows to read a code with a fully-compatible interpreter, regardless the browser installed on the hardware. But when a webkit engine does not please you for the functions it supports (like WebGL, very partially supported), it looks a problem for me.
Does anybody have a confirmation of how it works ? If the engine is wrapped with the app, do you know if we can choose the one to be included, or configure it (like enabling WebGL ;) ) ? Another idea ?
Thanks,
Vincent.
Worklight applications do not bundle an interpreter. The application will use what that is bundled in the OS.
In other words, the default WebView in Worklight is the one that the OS provides, in the case of Android it uses the bundled WebKit.
This is not something Worklight controls what-so-ever.
You could, maybe, somehow, bundle in your app the Firefox engine libraries and hook it all up together, but the task to do so is incredibly large and complex in size... and not supported by IBM Worklight. Also, I do not know whether Cordova supports this as well ( it is used in Worklight to interface with native functionality).
As for the useragent, the string "Worklight" is attached to it as part of support for IBM WebSphere Portal.
I am just wondering if is it possible to run extension like colorzilla / firebug in xulrunner.
In fact I am creating my own extension now and I was trying addon_sdk but this is very problematic to put extension icon/button next to location bar.
So I decided to work with xul, and I know that problem doesn't exist here. And Of course the best way to learn is analyze other code, a changing it. But I can't run any extension in xulrunner. Any hint / help ?
xulrunner is just a runtime or platform. You'd need an actual app on top of that. In that regard, Firefox, Thunderbird, Seamonkey, InstantBird, etc. can be considered (complex) xulrunner apps.
Existing extensions may run, with or without modifications in such a xulrunner app. Well, likely with modifications, as most extensions use APIs specific to Firefox or Thunderbird or ...
The add-on SDK is not generally isn't a good fit for generic xulrunner apps: It is too much tailered against Firefox specifically.
Story:
I have written a HTML Merge Compiler that can merge resource's/assets into one single HTML file (minify it to the max) and compiles Javascript with the google enclosure compiler. I have written this compiler to speed up loading and interpreting the code and to obfuscate the code to protect a little bit (script kiddie protection). Major reason was/is speed and to make it compact.
This is working OK with reliable results and i use this in PhoneGap applications/games. I have also written a javascript library that encapsulate all platforms that works with standard HTML/CSS without the need to change the code, it works also in the browser, with a touchscreen or without or on any device or operating system. Write once, publish many ;-). The idea around it is that is working always, always operate the same but can use device specific things when available but does never fail (when something is not there, for example a vibrate functionality).
Anyway, most frameworks (like PhoneGap) concentrate on Mobile Platforms but i want to port it also to desktop platforms like Windows, OSX and maybe Linux. For Windows I have wrote an Delphi Application that loads the HTML in a TEmbeddedWB object (is Internet Explorer actually) but the 'problem' is that it is only suitable to Windows and IE is not the fastest browser around, especially when it is embedded (do not why it is slower than the browser itself). For example, when i load the compiled code in Firefox and/or Google Chrome it is blazing fast (you do not notice it is javascript ;-)).
EDIT:
Pre release of IE10 for Windows 7 is just launched, installed it and lag is gone!
You can download it from here:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=35709
Introduction to my question:
I have tried XULRunner of Mozilla a long time ago but the first time was not a pleasure to me and also i tried it today again but can't get it to work. Get a parse error in the main xul file of the project, window is an undefined entity. ??? I create a sample project like: http://mdn.beonex.com/en/Getting_started_with_XULRunner.html
I do not know what to do about this error. Also i think documentation is not up-to-date? Most documentation is from around 2006.
The question, what i want to know:
Before i am going to waste my time (see also introduction), is it
possible to create frameless (full-screen) desktop executables with
use of XULRunner like with PhoneGap?
Is it possible to create cross-platform applications with XULRunner, i mean, does it really work seamless. Where can i find a ready-to-publish example of a XULRunner project and is it possible to load local HTML file(s) like in PhoneGap?
It is possible and allowed to access external resources?
Long story, but maybe there is somebody that have tried this before and can lead me to choose the right direction.
is it possible to create frameless (full-screen) desktop executables with use of XULRunner like with PhoneGap?
Yes. You use disablechrome attribute to remove the window frame and sizemode="maximized" to have it open full-screen. Alternatively you can use the full-screen API if you want your application to run in a normal window and only switch to full-screen mode on request.
Is it possible to create cross-platform applications with XULRunner
Yes. There are things like menus that work very differently on OS X but most of the time you don't need to care what operating system your application runs on (Windows, Linux and Mac OS X supported).
Where can i find a ready-to-publish example of a XULRunner project
See documentation for a XULRunner application example. For "ready-to-publish" you would need an installer which doesn't come with the platform.
is it possible to load local HTML file(s) like in PhoneGap?
Yes. The top-level window has to be XUL but you can use some very minimal code here - essentially a single <iframe flex="1"/> tag. You can load HTML pages into that frame then.
It is possible and allowed to access external resources?
Yes, XULRunner applications have full privileges and can access files on disk as well as web resources without any restrictions.
Background info:
Over the past week, I have been messing around with Chrome extensions and had no problem creating my extension. Great, Chrome rocks for making the development process very easy to learn, and, well... just easy!
Now I have it in my mind that I'd like to create this extension for as many browsers as I can, so I decided on Firefox next.
What a mess! There documentation has done nothing but give me a headache and waste my time so far, VERY convoluted and just generally unorganized.
I have managed to locate a code sample for a simple extension that I think I can use as a starting point and have begun messing around with - fine...
I have learned that this sample extension will not work with anything less than Firefox 4, as it uses the bootstrap technique to make the extension installable without a browser restart. Ughhhhhh....
Now we arrive at my questions:
Is it possible to develop an extension for Firefox 7 that will work with previous versions of Firefox? I don't even care about anything prior to Firefox 4, if that's the cutoff point for restart-less installations. It would be nice to know that what I am spending all this time making will work consistently and for more than a week when the user is prompted to upgrade next.
How about the reverse? Can I create an extension that is compatible with Firefox 3.5 through Firefox 7? I realize it would require a restart to install, but that would be acceptable if it resulted in a working extension regardless of the version.
Can anyone with experience on this stuff share a bit of what I'm getting myself into here? It seems like this is a nightmare of a platform to develop on, and that I will be constantly fixing my extension.
One last piece of relevant information:
The extension I am developing is purely javascript based - this stuff should work (I think?) because it's dependent on just one feature "content scripts" that really shouldn't be changing in implementation between versions at this point... right?
So what exactly am I missing? How do you create easily manageable Firefox extensions that will work in all versions of the browser?
Thanks everyone! :)
You have to distinguish between "traditional" extensions and extensions built with the Add-on SDK. The former are far more powerful given that they have direct access to all APIs the browser uses - but that's also the reason why they are more complicated to write and why the documentation is rather unordered (there are simply very many things that you could do, far more than you could with Chrome). They are also more likely to break as the browser changes. The Add-on SDK on the other hand gives you a limited API much like Chrome. The Add-on SDK currently supports everything from Firefox 4 onwards (yes, because of restartless installation), with the promise that browser changes will merely require your add-on to be recompiled with a newer version of the Add-on SDK. In fact, that recompiling will likely happen automatically in future for add-ons hosted on addons.mozilla.org. On to your questions:
Is it possible to develop an extension for Firefox 7 that will work with previous versions of Firefox?
Sure it is. The Add-on SDK currently marks your add-on as compatible with anything between Firefox 4 Beta 7 and Firefox 8 Alpha 1. Even as traditional add-ons go - starting with Firefox 4 the differences between particular browser versions are rather small, most things work in all of them. You can also stay compatible with Firefox 3.x but depending on what you do it might require some effort. Important information:
Firefox 4 for developers
Firefox 5 for developers
Firefox 6 for developers
Firefox 7 for developers
How about the reverse? Can I create an extension that is compatible with Firefox 3.5 through Firefox 7?
It doesn't matter which way you go. I wouldn't recommend spending much time on Firefox 3.x support however. With Firefox 3.5 no longer supported the only relevant version is Firefox 3.6. According to the statistics of my add-ons roughly 18% of the Firefox users continue using it. In the next few months this percentage will get significantly smaller, especially when Mozilla announces end-of-life for this branch. So for a new add-on supporting it is usually not justified.
Can anyone with experience on this stuff share a bit of what I'm getting myself into here?
Depends on how complicated your add-on will be. Given that you are developing an equivalent to a Chrome extension, you will most likely be using the Add-on SDK which means that there won't be any compatibility problems. As traditional add-ons go, simple add-ons that don't rely on some obscure implementation details also typically don't have any trouble staying compatible (I have two add-ons that didn't need a single adjustment since Firefox 3.5). Add-ons that go deep down into the system are more problematic of course.
Is there a "BlackBerry UI" CSS/JS framework available for Blackberry - Similar to IUI for the iPhone?
Hosted over on Google Code http://code.google.com/p/iui/ there is a great open source library for providing a "standard" iPhone UI for web applications.
i.e. a JavaScript and CSS library to provide:
BlackBerry look and feel
Data Binding
Curved corners etc.
DOM utilities
Handle idiosyncrasies between browser versions
Considering the fact UI changes across blackberry hardware, I guess it's difficult to create the equivalent of what is found on iOS.
I'm referring you to this forum thread you already saw for sure: Is there a "BlackBerry UI" CSS/JS framework for BB's - Similar to IUI for the iPhone
In term of compatibility and usability, I guess slightly altering a jQuery Mobile's theme would be your best option if you want to find one that is open source (unlike Sencha for example).
BB OS 6 contains a modern Webkit browser so it's easier to use standard toolkits such as Sencha.
Besides using Jquery Mobile or Sencha, you could give a try to this (official it seems) library https://github.com/blackberry/bbUI.js
I would recommend against using jQuery Mobile on a BlackBerry app.
It's slow (especially on older/less powerful devices), bloated (lots of stuff you probably won't ever need), the UI doesn't align with BlackBerry guidelines whatsoever and it doesn't play well with focus-based navigation (which is important as some current devices still don't have a touch screen and some users prefer to navigate with the trackpad).
bbUI.js (https://github.com/tneil/bbUI.js) as mentioned by Max is an official library originally developed by someone at RIM and, while it's not without its flaws and limitations, after months of working on a large WebWorks project it is still the best choice I've found to get up and running quickly.
Alas, the OS 6 browser crashes at the mere hint of javascript load (most usually the case), slightly less from having too many tabs open (by "too many", the amouny ranges between two on the lower spec models like 9300 to 4 or 5 on the 9780). This is from my experiences. Perhaps my settings are wrong - I tend to like smaller text, Arial and set the encoding to UTF-8.
However, I have never had Opera crash on the same phones - despite having at least 5 to 10 tabs open and in the background.