Vitaliy Margolen wrote: > Jacek Caban wrote: > >> Vitaliy Margolen wrote: >> >>>>> BTW why JavaScript doesn't work or any pop-up windows don't open? I know >>>>> 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 > JavaScript working in Wine? >
It already works! I only said that pop-ups don't work. >>> 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. Hm, where do you have those statistics from? How do you know how many apps are *fixed* by switch to the new implementation? > 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. > Steam didn't work at all unless you used Mozilla ActiveX control used by TG that had some unacceptable forthe main Gecko tree hacks. I didn't know about pop-ups in Steam. I've attached a hack from Picasa tree that causes links opening in new window to be opened in winebrowser. It's a nicer behavior than opening them in our IE replacement, but it's not guaranteed to work (app doesn't have control over it, different cookie manager...). As I wrote, correct implementation is much more complicated, but we're getting nearer to it. Eg. implementing InternetExplorer object (more or less that's what iexplore.exe is) was a big step forward. Anyway if the attached patch helps, it may go to Git IMO. >>> 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 > website has. > Not from API point of view. First of all app has to be able to embed HTML, then we can think about how nicely is HTML handled. > >> 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? > Aren't we? Still more and more works. Take a look at number of MSHTML patches. Do you think they are only to make Wine compilation time longer? > Do you have a todo list? Yes, fix a few MSHTML bugs I'm working ATM, then come back to activation context to get it accepted to Wine. I usually target on a specific app and fix it, so I have no clear todo list. There are a few hacks I'd like to fix (we're slowly getting there) and find time to make bug hunting on bugzilla. > Or at least a list of what needs to be done before we can open a > stinking popup? > Test how exactly does WebBrowser/MSHTM/InternetExplorer interface in this case and implement it or stay with the attached patch for now. > Or what all needs to be done to get JavaScrip working? > As I wrote, it works. JavaScript is not only for pop-ups. >>> 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. > It will add configure option that we will want to remove anyway. Jacek
