Related
I wanted to consult with the sages here regarding Qt and skinning, get your opinion and chart a path for my development. My requirements are as follows:
My Qt/C++ application (cross platform with Mac, Windows and Linux versions) needs to have modular skins.
A skin is defined as a set of one or more elements: - Window background texture - Look/feel of UI controls such as edit boxes, drop down, radio buttons, buttons etc. - Look/feel of window "caption", resize grips etc.
Skins will be installed with the application installer, allowing the user to choose which one he/she wants to use. Users should be able to change skins on the fly.
Can I go the QML route? should this be custom and based on simple resources which are built into the application? Any design advice will be appreciated.
Thanks.
If I understood you correctly then stylesheet is the best way forward. You can create stylesheets similar to CSS and then pass them as command line option to your application or load on invocation to style your application at runtime. That way you can create multiple stylesheets each having a different look and feel and allow user to load them at will. Since its CSS it doesn't need any new learning and you can keep all your styling outside your source code.
Here are a list of resources that can get you up and running quickly:
http://blog.qt.io/blog/2007/11/27/theming-qt-for-fun-and-profit/
http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/stylesheet.html
I haven't played with QML yet, but you could also create a custom QStyle implementation that supports your resource format. Note that you'd lose style sheet support if you went this route.
Changing window captions is a little trickier if you want portability.
QML, if I understand correctly, doesn't really skin the widgets, it mainly deals with GUI layout etc etc.
QStyle is used to change the looks. It is a bit low-level though, and requires programming, so if you want to load different user-created skins (from an XML or so) it might be tricky to support extensive skinning. Chaining colors and a few items are easy enough though. (There might be someone else who've done something you could re-use.. not sure.)
For modifying widgets, use QStyle::polish(). You could use that to change the background picture (if it's a top-level window, or of a certain class). There are numerous repaint method to change almost every part of every widget.
Store/load the style using QSettings, by reading and setting the desired Style just after QApplication but before your main window is constructed.
I know similar questions have been closed for it being "impossible to answer objectively", but stick with me here.
I built a prototype in Adobe Flex, they (customers) liked it. Everything was fine until they later told me that iPads / iOS needs to be supported too.
I checked out Adobe's Packager for iPhone. We're evaluating that and we will know if it works out in a couple of days. (We need to get through Apple's red tape and certificates raj so this angle is delayed by a few days!)
There is a growing voice for using HTML5/Canvas as a technology platform itself. And despite being quite proficient in Flex, I think this makes sense.
I'm in need of a HTML5 library that can:
Render "widgets" i.e. containers with forms and components (this should be easy and possible using POHJC - Plain old HTML, JavaScript and CSS ;-) )
Provide a Tree like control for laying out some data
Provide a Canvas where data structures can be represented as basic shapes
Provide drag and drop capabilities between Trees, Buttons and Canvas
Provide some sort of Tab Navigator container (I guess JQuery works here)
Interact with back-end services (JSON/XML calls will be okay, but mapping directly with back-end entities will be awesome!)
Renders on latest versions of major browsers, Android OS and iOS (WebKit for mobile?)
Am I asking for too much?
I'm ready to give JQuery & JQuery UI a try.
I looked at Sencha / ExtJS but it seems we need to maintain two code bases one for normal browsers and the other for mobiles (is that correct?)
Are there any other JS libraries worth trying out?
My concerns areas are
Single code base, I don't want to suggest to them that multiple code bases for the client need to be maintained. That's a last resort option and would lead to complete ruling out of HTML5 with Flash apps and native apps being developed.
Canvas capabilities - I don't want to work with raw canvas and shape tags. This too is a last resort option. Is there any abstraction available?
Integration with back-end services, obviously I need some capability here!
Help me out. Communitywikify this if required.
Thanks,
Sri
How about trying Vaadin?
http://vaadin.com/comparison
I do construe its irrelevant to your question, but still this framework can help in great deal. I still use Flex and PHP as main base for many application, but actually fell in love with Vaadin and started using it for my new projects.
Grant Skinner the flash guru is working on a html5 libary. It has some features you requested. It is still in development.
The new Canvas element in HTML5 is powerful, but it can be difficult to work with. It has no internal concept of discrete display elements, so you are required to manage updates manually. The Easel Javascript library provides a full, hierarchical display list, a core interaction model, and helper classes to make working with Canvas much easier.
The libary is called easeljs, you can find it here : http://easeljs.com/
For the normal html and css manipulations without html canvas JQuery is very easy to learn.
It's been a couple of years since I've done any Java work, my last efforts were using Swing. I'm poking around with a cross-platform client app that will interact with a Rails web service. JavaFX is one of the options I'm considering, but I'm concerned at the out-of-the-box aesthetic. Does JavaFX have a native look and feel option for the JavaFX controls (not Swing)?
I'm getting the impression that if I want to build a line of business application in Java, I should probably stick with Swing which is a shame since I like some of the features of JavaFX like binding, a terse syntax, and easy support for REST client programming.
I haven't see that. At best, you can use the extensive support of CSS styling we got with 1.3 to mimic native look and feel, but that's a big job! Not even sure how to deal with various themes we got on modern systems...
I suppose the point of RIAs is to bring their own look or to be flexible enough to allow to do your own shinny look, not to look like a random bland application on your platform... :-)
(Now, if I like skinnable applications, I also appreciate GUI frameworks using native controls or looking as such, like Qt (vs. GTK+ for example), precisely to provide good old "bland" applications not breaking user experience.)
JavaFX 2.0 has only one Look by default that is called "Caspian".
With Java 8 a second one was introduced, called "Modena".
Both are cross-platform Look&Feels.
See announcement of Modena, with screenshots.
At the moment some developers create native Styles for JavaFX as OpenSource projects. You can find an overview here:
http://www.guigarage.com/2013/01/this-is-for-the-native-ones/
If you are interested in the Mac OS L&F (AquaFX) for JavaFX, here are some posts with previews:
http://www.guigarage.com/category/aquafx/
Native look and feel is not supported by Oracle in the default JavaFX 2.x distribution.
A proof of concept on button styles by one of the JavaFX developers demonstrates that JavaFX is flexible enough to generate widgets that look like native widgets.
For OS X, you can try the third party AquaFX style for JavaFX, which makes JavaFX applications look like native OS X applications. AquaFX appears quite complete and comprehensive to me.
There have been other 3rd party projects which partially create native look and feels for other platforms, but their coverage is currently nowhere near comprehensive.
Some third party projects (all of which seem currently experimental and incomplete) are:
JMetro in jfx-styles
javafx-native-themes (JavaFX look and feels for: default swing, iOS, windows 7...)
you could definitely embed some css in your application to make the javafx components look more like the standard swing look. With scene builder its actually really easy to get all your tags setup correctly.
Check this out
http://docs.oracle.com/javafx/2/css_tutorial/jfxpub-css_tutorial.htm
Interesting thing is in javaFx is, you can give the rich look and feel to native application also.You can apply css to the javaFx components. Not only that you can embed the HTML Css and pages in JAVAFX application.Which i can feel great revolution in terms of UI building for Standalone applications.
I've tried looking everywhere for a concise list of the advantages and disadvantages of using Flex vs. Flash.
Coming from a programming background, I absolutely love Flex. It's easy to pick up, and since it can use flash classes, why would I want to use Flash without flex?
Flex:
Pros:
good for RIA development
provides many user-input options out of the box
Build in lay-outing system
the MXML is easier for non-programmers
You can quickly combine components to create small applications
components can provide an advantage in large-scale projects because of their modular
nature.
can be developed using linux
has a nice component lifecycle for validation, etc.
Cons:
increases the size of your .swf
Customizing the look of components can take a lot longer than anticipated, depending on the visual style you're looking for
when you find out you need a custom component that doesn't exist, you might need to go back to Flash to do the real programming work and packaging of the component
The "flexibility" of Flex means you will be reading a lot of documentation
Bugs in the Flex framework
You eventually will need to compromise with the architecture of the Flex framework
Flash
Pros:
good for making movies/animations
Timeline can be easier for designers/animators to conceptualize
when working from scratch, provides a great deal of control.
easier for someone with a programming background
You can program whatever you like; no compromises with existing frameworks
Cons:
only provides basic user input (text box) out of the box.
timeline can be daunting for programmers (although you can quite safely ignore it)
Development of certain types of applications will be slower than with Flex
can't be developed using linux
user input validation must all be handled in the code. No built-in validation.
need to implement your own lay-outing system
Please correct me if I missed anything said so far.
Flash and Flex both use the same underlying rendering engine, just with different front-ends. Flash is better suited for making movies and animations. Flex is better for application development.
From a programmer's viewpoint, the big difference between Flash and Flex is not so much which IDE/application you use for programming, but whether you program in ActionScript (AS) only, or use the Flex framework and MXML to program your applications.
I would say pure ActionScript is better for programming (whether you use Flash IDE or Flex IDE is not that relevant), and MXML is better for non-programmers to combine the components programmed in AS.
I would add to your list these pros/cons:
Flex:
Pros:
Easier for non-programmers to get into application development
You can quickly combine components to create small applications
Components can provide an advantage in large-scale projects
Cons:
Customizing the look of components can take a lot longer than anticipated, depending on the visual style you're looking for
When you find out you need a custom component that doesn't exist, you might need to go back to Flash to do the real programming work and packaging of the component
The "flexibility" of Flex means you will be reading a lot of documentation
Bugs in the Flex framework
You eventually will need to compromise with the architecture of the Flex framework
Flash (or Flex IDE in ActionScript project mode):
Pros:
Easier for someone with a programming background ;)
You can program whatever you like; no compromises with existing frameworks
Cons:
Timeline can be daunting for programmers (although you can quite safely ignore it)
Development of certain types of applications will be slower than with Flex
In short: pick the right tool for the right task.
Flex is a library of code written in ActionScript3, so it adds lots of capabilities and standard-library-like stuff to Flash. The downside is that it a is a huges amount code that gets included into your application. If you use any Flex at all in your app, the download size of the SWF goes up by 100's of K.
If your application has any kind of user interface widgets, then you almost have to use Flex as Flash itself only has the most basic things like text boxes. Flex has a whole XML GUI with layouts, data binding and XML setup etc.
Doing that in flash, you end up having to write from scratch things like list boxes...
In my opinion, the most important feature of the Flex framework is the component lifecycle, which provides a really elegant model for validation/invalidation of properties, component size, and hierarchical rendering.
The benefit to developers is that it creates discrete application phases for business logic and rendering, avoiding expensive geometry & rendering code until the last possible moment before drawing a frame.
Here's a really good presentation, explaining how it works:
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f15384v1002
The model is so well-designed that the component lifecycle remains almost entirely invisible during the majority of Flex development, when you're using the framework default components and containers. You only need to learn the inner-workings when you start developing your own components.
Developing in the Flash environment, or in pure Actionscript, you don't get any of that. Anyone developing pure AS3 applications either needs to code very carefully to separate business logic from rendering, or will suffer severely decreased performance.
[...] why would I want to use Flash without flex?
Flex is a new product, whereas Flash existed from the Macromedia days. Designer, animators and most anybody who is not brought up on a staple diet of programming education will probably find Flash easier to master than most other such solutions.
Target is different.
Flex is more dedicated for programmer while Flash is more friendly to Artist / web designer.
Flash is the IDE used (generally) to create animations and things that work well on a timeline.
Flex works better for creating internet applications which have interactions more akin to a desktop.
Why use Flash? Well, if you need to do something more specifically attached to a timeline, of course!
I see Flex as more of a solution for doing RIA applications where you need to develop application based solutions. There's quite a lot you get right out of the box with using Flex but it also comes at a price in terms of file size, granularity, etc.
If on the other hand you are working on a totally custom solution such as a game then perhaps Flash is the way to go because you can start fresh with a blank canvas. Many people still use Flash because they don't need all the app based bells and whistles of the Flex platform.
I like the freedom of Flash, and its really simple to embed assets in Flash, a little more confusing to do in Flex.
One thing that I love about flex is the ability to make a fluid application with minimal effort. Which would take forever in Flash.
Anything you can do in flex you can do in flash, just may take a lot longer to do. You can't do everything in flex that you can do in flash though.
Flex takes care of all the UI programming for you and lets you focus on the business logic, with flash you will spend a majority of time programming the UI.
You can develop Flex applications under Linux easily but with Flash you simply can't.
Another solution that was not suggested at here, will be to use them both. You can add flex components to flash movie clips using ContainerMovieClip. And you can add flash movie clips to flex components using SpriteVisualElement. Another thing that wasn't mentioned was lay-outing your application. It will be flex pros against flash disadvantage, because you got build in flex lay-outing system. But again when you are using them both, you can layout your movie clips with flex lay-outing system.
Also flex become Apache top-level project. And it become more and more excepted by the community now.
Flash and Flex are 2 complete different things, one is a design tool with support for action script, the other one is a framework that also has action script but is maily built around MXML which is a XML based UI definition "Language".
What are the key differences between Flash and Flex? I have over five years experience with flash and feel very comfortable developing with it and ActionScript3. I find myself more and more curious about Flex and want to know when it is best to use flash or flex. Also, is everything that can be done with MXML, able to be done with AS3? I have a strong understanding of AS3 and OOP and would like to know the diffrences between using AS3 and MXML in Flex.
Flex is great if you quickly want to build a UI, you can mock up a functioning UI in a couple hours. Since it still can be limiting for some custom UI's it's not perfect for everything but if something should "look" more or less like an application and fit in a grid it's super quick to mock up the UI in MXML. Also don't be intimidated of how most Flex apps look (ugly, imo), you can customize everything or easily create your own components.
Putting actionscript in mxml is the same as putting css or javascript in html = really bad. Unfortunately even Adobe has this in multiple examples (probably mostly because it's easier & faster for demostrations).. My personal opinion is that this applies to bindings too, as i don't want to put my data in the UI (mxml).
As an experienced developer I'm sure you don't do any development on the timeline (to clarify the Flash = timeline misconception). Still with Flex you have the UI separated in a framework that handles a lot of the burden with layout so that you can concentrate on the business logic. The rest of the workflow is close to what you probably already have with Flash.
It depends on what kind of applications you are developing now with Flash. I have been a Flash developer (mainly applications) for 7 years. I must honestly say that I was extremely glad when Flex 2 was released because it had the component framework (good components, layout managers, ...) I did not have in Flash. This is IMO the biggest difference between Flash and Flex (or the Flex framework).
MXML is a real blessing, especially when using data binding. In the end, everything is compiled down to ActionScript (check the -keep compiler option), but MXML just saves you so much time.
Flash and Flex provide different ways to produce different things. I am not familiar with Flash, but I would expect that it is dependent on a time-oriented way to produce something, whereas Flex is geared toward more traditional software development. That is, rather than dealing with time and frames in Flash, one is dealing with describing where components should be placed with MXML and how those components work with ActionScript.
One should also be able to write a Flex app with just AS3 and no need MXML.
The main difference between AS3 and MXML in Flex, as far as I know, is that MXML is not intended to be used with application logic, but rather it is intended to be used like HTML/CSS in web pages and puts components and content onto the Flex app. ActionScript is used to program behaviors, components, and other things outside or what MXML does. Thus, if you want to attach an event to a component one would write ActionScript code.
Hope that helps. I am still learning about Flex myself.
Some other differences that come to mind:
Flash allows you to create graphical assets and then work with them immediately. To use those same things in Flex, you need to use Flash to export them to a swf or swc first.
Flex has a layout manager, so applications that have variable window size are waaaay easier to make. For instance, you can take a window and set it to 90% width of the window, and it will change size... not scale mind you, but actually change its width as the window is made larger or smaller. This is not easy outside of the Flex framework.
Data Binding in Flex is a huge timesaver. It essentially creates all of the code you'd need to write in AS3 by simply saying blah="{foo}" The curley braces denote "bind to this".
The Flex Debugger is vastly superior to the Flash one. There is also a Profiler.
Since I started with Flex and not Flash, I'm not sure what kind of IDE is best for Flash dev, but the Eclipse based Flex Builder is quite nice. The code hinting is great. Subclipse integration is great.
Really, Flash and Flex are different beasts. You should know and understand AS3 if you want to use Flex, and since you do, you're in a perfect position to take advantage of Flex's features. Flash is not going anywhere as a tool for making more visually creative pieces, but Flex offers a lot of advantages for application development.
I prefer Flash IDE vs Flex (aka Flex Builder aka Flash Builder for my comment)
In general i would say it depends on the size of the project.
I find it easier to start and finish small projects quickly in Flash.
I would advise Flex for larger projects because it has various debug tools that can save you plenty of time (although i would still just use Flash my self)
But maybe if you really get used to flex, that might not matter.
some Cons of Flex from my experience.
When working on a team of 4 on a
large project, Flex failed to keep
the project
settings from one computer to another. (we shared files using SVN)
Flex constantly conflicted with SVN for us.
I felt distant from the art assets.
some Pros of Flex
being able to follow variable references from one class to another at the click of a button.
being able to easily see many variables while debugging. w/o needing to trace them.
and Flash used to not have Custom Class Code hinting, but now with CS5 it does.
I think you can use the newest features of Flash Player w/o waiting for a new Flash CS#, for example MoleHill (a new 3d api that uses the GPU) has a beta release out right now. and i think the Flex SDK can already use it.
hope this helps.
it should be noted that I am a rare case that doesn't prefer flex, most people strongly prefer flex, so you should give it a try at least.
MXML compiles to action script so it's really like a higher level version of that. So, yes, everything that can be done with MXML can be done with actionscript (but not the other way around).
Flash CSx:
GUI\Layout: Basic GUI class framework
Graphical Content: Great for editing graphical library objects with or without animation
Code: Lacks a good code editor
Flex/Flash Builder + Flex Framework:
GUI\Layout: Advanced GUI class framework and layout engine (Flex)
Graphical Content: Lacks drawing capabilities of Flash, but you can include Flash generated graphics by exporting them for ActionScript into a SWC and importing/referencing the SWC in Flash Builder.
Code: Much better code editor than Flash; not sure if it's on par with FlashDevelop
Other: Supports MXML, which is basically just another style of laying out content. Instead of writing a bunch of "c = new C()", "c.prop = x", "c.addChild"... you can structure display objects and thier children using XML constructs, and the MXML compiler will convert it all back into the less-readable, but basically the same AS3 code.
These technologies are all related and interoperable. They are natural and predictable extensions of the Flash player and ActionScript techonolgies, but for some reason Adobe developed the Flex/Flex-builder/MXML technologies as a totally separate product, and market it as something totally new and oh-so-amazing. Whatever. So now we have to go back and forth between the two to use all the features, which is LAME. They also have to waste time and resources developing unnecessary, but helpful, packages like the "Flex Component Kit" to reduce the number of steps necessary to get Flash content into Flash Builder.
You have to go back and forth between these applications, because of their mutually exclusive features -- Flash Builder lacks graphics editing, and Flash CSx lacks MXML and a good code editor -- but they're interoperable in the sense that you can use Flex classes in Flash, Flash classes (and their embedded graphics) in Flex, you can use Flash Builder and MXML without Flex, etc.
I think they need a single, truly integrated Flash IDE, so they need to merge Flash Builder into the Flash CSx editor.