Article:		BYOB: Build Your Own Browser
Subject:		Again?
Date:		2004-01-24 02:52:07
From:		iopossum
Do we really need another "Build your own browser" article. The internet became flooded with these when webkit came out and now you guys are putting it up as legitimate programing material? Please. Why don't you really delve into new technologies like you used to. There's so much new in Panther that isn't properly explained, like the controller layer for example. Oreilly is supposed to be professional, instead the quality has done nothing but go down, with a bunch of "learn C" articles and useless redundant examples like this.

Showing messages 1 through 12 of 12.

• Controller examples
  2004-01-25 01:48:25  mmalc [View]
  
  
  Apple has updated a number of bindings-related pages recently: <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CocoaBindings/index.html>. I put a bindings-based ("controller layer") version of a web browser at <http://homepage.mac.com/mmalc/CocoaExamples/ControlledWebKit.zip>. Other examples are listed at <http://homepage.mac.com/mmalc/CocoaExamples/controllers.html>.

• RE: Again?
  2004-01-24 09:41:32  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  Not "again" on Mac Dev though. If you've already read a similar article somewhere else, that's great. But we don't have any coverage of WebKit in our archives, and I think it's important to cover. Since we publish 2-3 original features a week, I think the odds are good there'll be something more to your tastes soon.
  
  As for O'Reilly's "quality has done nothing but go down," you are way out of line. If you look at the recent Panther books we've published, they are top notch and comprehensive. Our Mac OS X Conference is a one of a kind event and has received excellent feedback from attendees.
  
  Mac DevCenter is O'Reilly's effort to provide free Mac information, news, weblogs, and commentary to those interested in developing for the platform, want to try their hand at developing, or enjoy a community with others who have similar interests.
  
  If the content on this site doesn't do it for you. Fine, That's fair. We can't be everything to everyone. There are lots of good things on the Web that I'm sure are better suited to your tastes.
  
  But don't come to my house and insult my family just because you don't like what's being served.
• RE: Again?
  2004-01-24 11:42:15  josephbriggsorn [View]
  
  
  lopossum was quite harsh in his criticism but he does have a glimmer of a point. The Cocoa tutorials once were in-depth and inspiring, but now they tend toward the basics. I don't mind so much since I do access those other sites you intimate, but it would be nice to get the same depth from O'Reilly since I really like the site.
  
  Of course a zero code browser tutorial must be done but even at my basic level, I've done this on my own as soon as I installed XCode (it is that easy). What I and lopossum and others like us might appreciate more would be a deeper look at WebKit, like how it interprets and renders html content. I think a small(ish) split view html editor tutorial would be awesome. I would be very willing to read through four 4 to 6 page installments for something like that.
  
  I hope I don't sound like I'm "insulting your family," I would just like to think that O"Reilly is capable of serving the basic, intermediate and advanced developers/hobbyists who visit their site.
• RE: Again?
  2004-01-24 12:51:20  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  Well, there are a few things that I'd like you to keep in mind.
  
  First, I think we can discuss this topic with civility, as you have in your post.
  
  Next, remember this is the first article in a two-part series. The second article does drill down more. But not everyone who comes to the site is as seasoned as you and lopossum. A large part of our readership is moving from power user to developer and wants this type of information. And one of my goals is to help as many people become Mac developers as wants to.
  
  Also, please remember that the contributions to this site come from members of our audience who are not paid very much and give freely of their time because they believe in this platform and want to help others master it too.
  
  There is certainly the detail you want in our O'Reilly books, which we spend countless hours working on and at great expense. They are available through our Safari online service and in bookstores everywhere.
  
  This site does not have that kind of budget. It is free. And it is dependent upon the people who contribute to it. I thank every writer who publishes on this site for his or her time. I think our audience does a great job of providing us with interesting, topical content.
  
  Finally, I've learned that when I publish content for both beginning developers and seasoned veterans, the site is more vibrant and has more traffic. When I publish only the in-depth stuff, traffic wanes, and if it stayed that way, the site would be in danger.
• XCode please
  2004-01-24 18:41:52  keath [View]
  
  
  I didn't appreciate loppossum's comments either. I am grateful for the free information available at your site. I made good use of the Apache series, for example.
  
  I've also purchased many O'reilly books, mostly Perl; but I still have an interest in Cocoa. The one thing loppossum said I would agree with is a request for more information about using XCode and it's new controller mechanism. I saw that demoed in a movie at the Apple Developer site, but no details were given.
  
  I still have a few more Perl books to buy from your company, but I am also looking forward to an expanded book on Cocoa programming, updated for XCode.
• RE: XCode please
  2004-01-24 21:02:14  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  Indeed, deeper into Xcode, controller and otherwise, is a great request. Consider yourself heard (although we've been looking at it anyway). The toughest part -- finding a good writer on the subject.
  
  Suggestions anyone?
  
  Thanks for your comments!
• RE: XCode please
  2004-01-25 00:34:39  iopossum [View]
  
  
  Alright, let me begin by apologizing for the harshness of my original post. I'd like to point out however that my anger came from an appreciation for this site and a fear that it's quality may be decreasing. The original articles that were once published here got me hooked, they were several pages long and dealt with problems several of us had and things many of us wanted to do. However, I honestly saw no need for another "this is a variable this is a loop" article. The web is literally full of hundreds of these explanations and its simple not worth the effort to come out with another series of these, at least in my opinion. My frustration came from the fact that I look forward to these articles (I visit this site at least every day) and to have it be something that is lasrgely superficial and "yesterday's news" is a bit disappointing. Typing "cocoa one line browser" into google yields three distinct versions of this just quickly looking through, of which one is from Cocoa Dev Central which many of the people here probably visit as well. With this example in such abundance I would expect it to be a link on this site at the most. Now, this is "part 1" so I may be jumping the gun. This is just the impression I am getting and I am sorry if I offended anyone. I honestly didn't want to make anyone angry, I own quite a bit of Oreilly books and love them. I would also like to offer my services if it is true that many here are under time/money constraints since this is one of the few living mac dev sites and I don't want to see it die or go down. Here is the first of my own series of tutorials I have begun and would be more than willing to contribute to this site instead of the one I'm currently writing for: http://members.macteens.net/francisco/tutorials/ .
• RE: XCode please
  2004-01-25 17:23:26  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  Alright, well let's get back on track. First item, thanks iopossum for your note. No hard feelings :)
  
  In general, I hope we're to the point where we agree to tolerate a little diversity in our articles, ranging from beginning developer to advanced programmer, plus news, commentary, and for god sakes some fun. I think we publish enough content on Mac DevCenter to accommodate these different levels.
  
  That being said, I do want contributions from advanced programmers (always have), and I want them to show off their stuff right here. Send me your ideas in the body of an email, and I will get back to you. Almost every article I publish starts this way.
  
  As for my part, I will continue to look for writers who have the time to produce advanced articles. As you guys know, the people who can do this are some of the busiest in the world. I'll do my best to cajole work out of them. But it's a team effort here, and I need your help.
• RE: XCode please
  2004-01-25 21:28:40  Andrew Anderson | [View]
  
  
  (I feel a bit like I am jumping in a little late.. unfortunately I was out of town and off the net the whole weekend... but I feel like i need to add my 2 cents)
  
  I understand that the first article was a little basic and that it was not the most novel concept. the thing is the goal for this topic was always two articles: part one with the basics, part two with more meat. i felt it would be confusing to readers to jump right into the intracies of webkit without having a backgroud article for readers to refer to.
  
  that being said, if there is anything that anyone is specifically looking for in part 2, let me know and I will try my best to include it in the article. i need specifics though, not something like "more technical details of webkit".
  
  as derrick said, it's a team effort, i can't deliver what you want in an article unless i know what it that is.
  
  andrew
  
  
  
• RE: XCode please
  2004-01-31 11:19:30  jbakse [View]
  
  
  Hello,
  
  I originally took a look at this tutorial thinking there was a small chance there might be a little information I could apply towards creating an javascript aware environment.
  
  I know that this is something that probably wouldn't fit in the next article that well, but I thought this was as good a place as any to get in a request. I'd love to see an article about embedding a javascript environment.
  
  -justin
• RE: XCode please
  2004-01-28 18:38:23  keath [View]
  
  
  Thanks Andrew,
  
  I would just like to see you follow up with what you outlined at the end of the article. For example, updating the URL line.
  
  I saw the 'Mac OS X State of the Union' video at ADC. Towards the end, it was demonstrated how to set up a browswer using WebKit very quickly. Using XCode, it was easy to set up the outlets from the UI elements to the WebView; but I don't understand how the new controller mechanism was used to do the reverse: update the UI from WebKit.
  
  It would be great if you could explain not only WebKit, but something about how this new tool works.
• RE: XCode please
  2006-01-31 07:02:02  speth [View]
  
  
  i've posted some code at http://end.com/BionicDOM that does something like this. it is a framework with an Interface Builder palette that lets you use Cocoa Bindings to access values in the WebView. the sample.nib file included implements a live CSS inspector panel entirely with bindings. (try running sample.nib in the Interface Builder simulator)