Discussions

News: XUI 1.0.4 final is now available

  1. XUI 1.0.4 final is now available (11 messages)

    XUI is an open source Java and XML framework for building rich client, desktop and mobile applications. The framework can save you up to 60% of the code typically needed to build an application. The result is real savings in development time, maintenance costs and provides greater stability and flexibility.

    XUI 1.0.4 brings many new features and enhancements, notably:

        * Integrated database access
        * New and enhanced widgets
        * Dynamic attribute evaluation
        * Extended event handling
        * XML based component registration
        * Background image loading
        * Updated component factories
        * Modified layout manager support
        * More advanced validation mechanisms
        * Linux support

    In addition to the enhancements this release includes numerous fixes and performance enhancements.

    Further documentation can be found at:

        * http://xui.sourceforge.net - the project website.
        * http://xui.sourceforge.net/xui104/index.html - XUI 1.0.4 release notes.
        * http://xui.sourceforge.net/docs/api/ - API documentation for XUI 1.0.4.
        * http://xui.sourceforge.net/gallery/gallery.html - a gallery of XUI applications.

    The XuiAll package contains a simple editor for XUI, however this is being replaced by a NetBeans based IDE. The latest version of this IDE can also be found on the SourceForge site. The NetBeans editor provides all the facilities of the previous editor and leverages the support provided by NetBeans 3.6 to give a more powerful development environment.

    Xoetrope also offers documentation for its Carousel framework which extends XUI and the NetBeans XuiEditor. This documentation provides extensive coverage of the XUI framework and provides detailed information on related development issues such as packaging and deployment. A draft of this documenation can be found at sourceforge

    XUI 1.0.4 is released under a modified form of the Mozilla Public License. Previous versions had been released under the Artistic License and following expressions of concern by several people we have moved to the new license. The license can be found at: http://xui.sourceforge.net/docs/license.txt

    We would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who participated in the test program and provided valuable feedback.

    Enjoy!

    Threaded Messages (11)

  2. Cool Product, Not So Pretty[ Go to top ]

    It's so important for GUI tools to look good. The gallery apps were impressive in terms of their functionality but not very visually appealing. When I look at Swing apps made with JGoodies for example, I am immediately drawn to their elegance. The trick is to combine ease of use with appearance.
  3. Cool Product, Not So Pretty[ Go to top ]

    +1

    Unfortunately the look and feel does make a difference to a lot of people. It can be the difference between something that looks cobbled together and something that looks truely professional.
  4. Re:Cool Product, Not So Pretty[ Go to top ]

    Yes, of course appearance is important and JGoodies provides some nice
    features. There's nothing to stop you using JGoodies as part of an XUI
    application. XUI doesn't take away any control from the developer, it gives
    you some more options and you can choose to only use those parts you find
    useful.
     
    That said, the comparison to JGoodies is a little inappropriate as XUI's
    objectives are quite a bit different to those of JGoodies. At present XUI
    doesn't provide explicit support for JGoodies but if there is enough demand
    we may add such a capability to later versions.
     
    Many of the applications in the gallery are in fact AWT applications, and
    some are designed for embedded systems. These applications are therefore
    limited in what they can support. If you choose to stick with Swing then
    there is a far greater range of widgets available to make you application
    look well. XUI even includes several mechanisms to make adding your own
    widgets simple.
  5. I agree... Not rich ![ Go to top ]

    I think it is not rich client at all. It's faces is very common and not so pretty. See Bindows, it is the really rich Client! www.bindows.net
  6. How does it compare?[ Go to top ]

    How does this compare to something like OpenLaszlo, Luxor XUL, etc.?
  7. How does this compare to something like OpenLaszlo, Luxor XUL, etc.?

      To compare XUI to alternative XML UI language packages I invite you to check out the XUL Challenge 2004 gallery online @ http://xul.sourceforge.net/counter.html

      - Gerald

    ---------------
    Gerald Bauer
    Thinlet Addon Central - http://thinletplus.com
  8. Hello,

      also allow me to highlight the Richmond Post poll asking "What is Your XML UI Language Toolkit of the Year 2004?" to find the most popular open source XML UI package.

      Choices for Java include:

      o XUI
      o Luxor
      o SwiXML
      o Thinlet
      o XSWT
      o Vexi
      o Sulu
      o Jazilla

      Cast your vote online @ http://jroller.com/page/rich/20041222#poll_what_is_your_xul

      - Gerald

    ----------------------------
    Gerald Bauer
    XUL News Wire - http://xulnews.com
  9. Hello,  also allow me to highlight the Richmond Post poll asking "What is Your XML UI Language Toolkit of the Year 2004?" to find the most popular open source XML UI package.  Choices for Java include:  o XUI  o Luxor  o SwiXML  o Thinlet  o XSWT  o Vexi  o Sulu  o Jazilla  Cast your vote online

    I think it is a mistake to picture SwiXML as XUL because there is no particular XML UI Language definition and UI abstraction. XML there serves as scripting language.

    SwiXML is XML scripted Swing, XML there could be replaced (theoretically) by Jython, Jelly or something like that.

    Personally I think that SwiXML approach has much more sense than all other XUL, which try to define own UI language. Propaganda: Vote for SwiXML!
  10. Personally I think that SwiXML approach has much more sense
    > than all other XUL, which try to define own UI language.
    > Propaganda: Vote for SwiXML!

      If you like the SwiXML approach you might also be interested in XSWT (see http://xswt.sourceforge.net ) which basicaly is SwiXML for SWT.

      - Gerald
  11. > Personally I think that SwiXML approach has much more sense > than all other XUL, which try to define own UI language. > Propaganda: Vote for SwiXML!  If you like the SwiXML approach you might also be interested in XSWT (see http://xswt.sourceforge.net ) which basicaly is SwiXML for SWT.  - Gerald
    That I will not like for sure because I consider SWT being wrong technology ( for WORA java client at least ).
  12. Oh...
    There are so many simpler techology.

    I think we need a XHTML like, general standard of the XML-GUI binding.
    Hope it is a cross-language, cross-platform even can have difference implements(Swing/SWT).

    I think SWT is right.
    Cross-platform is not the only reason for using Java. For many real applications, we don't really need universe cross-platform.

    BTW, What is the difference between:
     1. Pure-Java(Swing?)
     2. using native code, but can support all platform that we have Java VM(AWT?).
     3. using native code, support some platform which I have to working on it only(SWT?)