Creating native GtkMenu from Firefox extension - user-interface

Is it possible to create a native GtkMenu (I mean not XUL, but a real GtkMenu) from a Firefox extension? (and add to the firefox window). I would like to make GlobalMenu work with Firefox, which currently doesn't work due to the lack of native GUI.

If you want to have your menu inside firefox window, then... I don't know the details, but the usual way in X is to make a X window (for example GtkWindow) with your GtkMenu. Then you should make firefox "swallow" that window, something like all the systray utilities do that (keywords:reparenting X window--should be enough). I guess there should be special XUL element for than, but I don't see any.
If you dont want to, you can simply make your own GtkWindow with GtkMenu and show it. I guess you should probably do this from another thread. Regarding your other question here -- it is fully possible to write an extension in C++, as long as you use Gecko SDK and Gecko API. You can then link with whatever library you want, including GTK.
I think you should ask this question on one of Mozilla's mailing lists, for example mozilla.dev.extensions (they are listed on http://www.mozilla.org/community/developer-forums.html).

Related

Nesting an application inside OS X subview

I'm looking for a way to embed another application into my own view.
The business reason is that the company has many small Electron apps (basically a small portable web program with a self-contained browser) that the company wants to embed inside an OS X program. These Electron apps would ideally integrate and display inside a subview seamlessly, so they look like little web frames inside our larger program.
I think programatically it would be easiest to open another program as a subview, but I'll take whatever I can get. Maybe even capturing it's NSWindow somehow. (Electron source is available so it is easily discoverable.) Maybe a way to dock the other program inside mine, or (getting more desperate) finding its view and sending commands to constrain it's size and location on top of mine.
So far all I've found says it is not really possible. I've found I can take the more desperate course. I can launch a process, find its view, and position it inside a spot on my display; when the window is moved or the content is scrolled send messages to move the other window. But that isn't really integrated, the menu stays separate, etc., but I cannot incorporate it.
Any ideas or helpful implementation details?
EDIT 1: Thanks for those responses. How about if we could have the electron apps expose their NSWindow somehow? Could that be leveraged? I'm thinking the application could send messages and (somehow, not sure exactly) to set the parent window inside this one. In Windows API it is much easier since you can call SetParent on anything, even items inside different processes. But Cocoa seems more difficult.
This isn't really a thing you can do in Mac OS X. Applications are not "composable" in the way you're hoping for - while it is possible to share a view with a subprocess under certain very specific circumstances (e.g, Safari or Chrome tab renderers), this requires the subapplication to be written in a very specific way to permit that. It's not something that would be feasible in the situation you're describing.
If you have access to the source of these Electron apps, consider combining them into a single overarching Electron application. Alternatively, if it's not possible for these applications to coexist within a single Electron app, you may want to consider using something like Chromium Embedded Framework to build your wrapper application; note, however, that this may require you to implement parts of the Electron framework yourself.
You cannot do that. Cocoa requires you to have only one NSApplication instance per UI app. So you will to fork/exec out new process and launch your applications.
If you can recompile the source code then you can create custom subclass of NSApplication and use that custom class in all the applications or you can create NSthread of other applications without NSApplication instance and go from there.

Can an extension similar to Simple Notes (Opera) be developed in Firefox?

I have a very limited knowledge on the manipulation of overlays and XUL elements in Firefox extensions but I am interested to know if it's possible to do something like this "Simple Notes" Opera add-on in Firefox browser interface.
Yes, it can be, and probably has been, done, or at least something close.
You can search AMO for Notes or Note and look through the results for an extension that does what you want.

Reuse built-in Firefox icons in XUL extension?

Is there an easy way to use the built-in icons of the Firefox browser, such as the add, remove, or refresh icon, in a XUL firefox extension? I would like to use the icons in a toolbar to be consistent with the browser design.
I have been looking high and low for an answer, but the web is strangely devoid of this little piece of information. Therefore it must either be dead simple or not possible. I hope the former...
Thanks already for all your help :)
The resources, such as icons, are accessible from add-ons.
E.g. the browser reload icon is at chrome://browser/skin/reload-stop-go.png (you can open this in your Firefox). This particular icon would be used in conjunction with -moz-image-rect bases sprite-ing.
Icons are usually specified in the CSS rules for the browser (Firefox) or the global package (aka. toolkit). To find out where something is, I'd recommend the DOM Inspector add-on, inspecting the Chrome window itself and looking in particular at the CSS and/or computed styles view. Also, you may look directly in the source, e.g. on MXR.
Word of advice: Should you always double-check that browser/toolkit resources are actually available on all platforms and are accessed the same way, have the same URI, dimensions in case of icons, and so on. In particular with add-ons, quite often the platform themes will use platform icons (e.g. GTK stock icons on linux) or provide multiple alternatives (Win aero and regular icons, or regular and #2x hidpi ones).

Is it possible to override the default folder browser dialog in Windows?

For a while now I've disliked the default folder browser dialog in Windows:
Granted, at least it has the text box with autocomplete; but if you go strictly with the tree view, it can take a lot of clicks and scrolling to get where you want!
It'd be nice if I could develop a superior (to my taste) UI and have this override my system's default. That is, whenever an application requests a native folder browser from Windows on my system, I'd like to be able to define my own such control so that it will be displayed instead of the built-in one. Naturally I could/would then also offer this to others to install on their systems if they like.
Does Windows provide an API to override this particular feature? Maybe via a shell extension or something like that? (I've never done anything that interacts directly with the OS like that; so I don't even know where to start looking.)
Basically I am asking if this OS-level functionality is configurable within Windows.
An app called FlashFolder seems to have done that, and has a lot of good reviews (meaning it at least works for someone) but doesn't work for me at all on Windows 8. If you have an earlier version of Windows perhaps you'll have more luck.

Window docking advice for Mac

I'm from a Windows programming background when writing tools, but have been programming using Carbon and Cocoa for the past year. I have introduced myself to Mac by, I admit it, hiding from UI programming. I've been basically wapping my OpenGL code in a view, then staying in my comfort zone using my platform agnostic OpenGL C++ code as usual.
However, now I want to start porting one of my more sophisticated applications to Mac OS.
Typically I use the standard Visual Studio dockable MDI approach, which is excellent, but very Windows-like. From using a Mac primarily now for a while, I don't tend to see this sort of method used for Mac UIs. Even Xcode doesn't support the idea of drag and drop/dockable views, unfortunately. I see docked views with splitter panels, but that's about it.
The closest thing I've seen to the Visual Studio approach is Photoshop CS4, which is pretty nice.
So what is the general consensus on this? Is there are more Mac-like way of achieving the same thing that I haven't seen? If not, I'm happy to write a window manager in Cocoa myself, so that I can finally delve in an learn what looks like an excellent API.
Note, I don't want to use QT or any other cross-platform libraries. The whole point is that I want to make a Mac app look like a Mac app, leave the Windows app looking like a Windows app. I always find the cross-platform libraries tend to lose this effect, and when I see a native Mac UI, with fancy Cocoa transitions and animations, I always smile. It's also a good excuse for me to learn Cocoa.
That being said, if there is an Open Source Cocoa library to do this, I'd love to know about it! I'd love to see how someone else achieves this, and would help smooth the Cocoa learning curve.
Cheers,
Shane
UPDATE: I forgot to mention a critical point. I support plugins, which can have their own UI to display various plugin specific information. I don't know which plugins will be loaded and I don't know where their UI will live, if I don't support docking. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, specifically: How do I support a plugin view architecture, if the UI can't change? Where do I put the plugin views?
Coming from a Windows background, you feel the need to have docking windows, but is it really essential to the app? Apple's philosophy (in my opinion) is that the designer knows better than the user how things should look and work. For example, iTunes is a pretty sophisticated app, but it doesn't let you change the UI around, change the skin, etc., because Apple wants to keep it consistent. They offer the full view, the mini player, and a handful of different viewing options, but they don't let you pull the source list off into a separate window, or dock it in other positions. They think it should be on the left, so there it stays...
You said you "want to make a Mac app look like a Mac app", and as you pointed out, Mac apps don't tend to have docking windows. Therefore, implementing your own docking windows is probably a step in the wrong direction ;)
+1 to Ken's answer.
From a user perspective unless its integral to the app like it is in Adobe CS or Eclipse i want everything as concise as possible and all the different options and displays out of my way so i can focus on the document.
I think you will find with mac users that those who have the "user skill" to make use of rearranging panels will in most cases opt for hot key bindings instead, and those who dont have that level of "skill" youre just going to confuse.
I would recommend keeping it as simple as possible.
One thing that's common among many Mac apps is the ability to hide all the chrome and focus on your content. That's the point behind the "tic tac" toolbar control in the top right corner of many windows. A serious weakness of many docking UIs is that they expect you to have the window take up most of the screen, because the docked panels can obscure content. Even if docked panels are collapsable, the space left by them is often just wasted and filled with white space. So, if you build a docking panel into your interface, you should expect it to be visible most of the time. For example, iTunes' source list is clearly designed to be visible all the time, but you can double-click a playlist to open it in a new window.
To get used to the range of Mac controls, I'd suggest you try doing some serious work with some apps that don't have a cross-platform UI; for example, the iWork apps, Interface Builder or Preview. Take note of where controls appear and why—in toolbars, in bottom bars, in inspectors, in source lists/sidebars, in panels such as IB's Library or the Font and Color panels, in contextual HUDs. Don't forget the menu bar either. Get an idea of the feel of controls—their responsiveness, modality, sizing, grouping and consistency. Try to develop some taste—not everything is perfect; just try iCal if you want to have something to make fun of.
Note that there's no "one size fits all" for controls, which can be an issue with docking UIs. It's important to think about workflow: how commonly used the control would be, whether you can replace it with direct manipulation, whether a visible indication of its state is necessary, whether it's operable from the keyboard and mouse where appropriate, and so forth. Figure out how the control's placement and behavior lets the user work more efficiently.
As a simple example of example of a good versus bad control placement and behavior in otherwise-decent applications, compare image masking in OmniGraffle and Keynote. In OmniGraffle, this uses the Image inspector where you have to first click on an unlabeled button ("Natural size") in order to enable the appropriate controls, then adjust size and position away in a low-fidelity fashion with an image thumbnail or by typing percentages into fields. Trying to resize the frame directly behaves in a bizarre and counterintuitive fashion.
In Keynote, masking starts with a sensibly named menu item or toolbar item, uses a HUD which pops up the instant you click on a masked image and allows for direct manipulation including a sensible display of the extent of the image you're masking. While you're dragging a masked image around, it even follows the guides. Advanced users can ignore the HUD entirely, just double-clicking the image to toggle mask editing and using the handles for sizing. It should be easy to see, with a few caveats (e.g. the state of "Edit Mask" mode should be visible in the HUD rather than just from the image; the outer border of the image you're masking should be more effectively used) Keynote is substantially better at this, in part because it doesn't use an inspector.
That said, if you do have a huge number of options and the standard tabbed inspector layout doesn't work for you, check out the Omni Group's OmniInspector framework. Try to use it for good, and hopefully you'll figure out how to obsess over UI as much as you do over graphics now :-)
(running in slow motion, reaching out in panic) Nnnnnoooooooo!!!!!
:-) Seriously, as I mentioned in reply to Ken's excellent answer, trying to force a "Windowsism" on an OS X UI is definitely a bad idea. In my opinion, the biggest problem with Windows UI is third-party developers inventing new and inconsistent ways of presenting UI, rather than being consistent and following established conventions. To a Mac user, that's the sign of a terrible application. It's that way for a reason.
I encourage you to rethink your UI app's implementation from the ground up with the Mac OS in mind. If you've done your job well, the architecture and model (sans platform-specific implementation) should clearly translate to any platform.
In terms of UI, you've been using a Mac for a year, so you should have a pretty good idea of "the norm". If you have doubts, it's best to post a question specifically detailing what you need to present and your thoughts on how you might do it (or asking how if you have no idea).
Just don't whack your app with the ugly stick by forcing it to behave as if it were running in Windows when it's clearly not. That's the kiss of death for an app to Mac users.

Resources