February 1, 2007 at 13:29Overview of engines for desktop widgets
- Transfer
First, you need to clearly distinguish between web widgets and desktop widgets. The first are content modules that are embedded on a web page. This type of widget is entirely based on web technologies that work through the browser: HTML, Flash, etc. Such modules existed on the Internet for a long time, and they began to call them widgets relatively recently. Initially, the word "widget" meant a mini-application for the desktop.
The advantages of desktop widgets are that they work independently of the browser, have access to the resources of a personal computer, potentially can be used offline, fit better into the context of the operating system and all surrounding programs. Desktop widgets blur the line between the web and the desktop, extracting information from the web and displaying it on the desktop.
Newsweek magazine predicted that 2007 would be the year of widgets . This word will firmly enter our vocabulary, and widgets will become very popular. Today, there are four main platforms for widgets. Yahoo’s developer Ed Voas (Ed Voas) has published a review of these platforms, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Apple Dashboard
Microsoft Windows Vista Sidebar
Google Desktop Gadgets
Yahoo! Widgets (Konfabulator)
Apple and Microsoft platforms use the browser core (each of them) for the operation of widgets, while Google Desktop and Yahoo! Widgets are based on proprietary XML formats and rendering engines. Each approach has its pros and cons.
Apple Dashboard / Microsoft Windows Vista Sidebar A
browser-based framework makes it easy to create widgets. Existing web applications are relatively easy to modify to work on the desktop. DHTML is simple and convenient. In addition, you can use special Javascript objects and Ajax libraries in widgets. Convenient tools have been released for developers, including the new DashCode IDE system .
The disadvantages of this approach are that each widget is a complete web page, which requires significant system resources. Another problem is a tight binding to the operating system. Apple widgets work only on Apple, and Microsoft gadgets only work on Vista.
Google Desktop Gadgets
Google currently uses proprietary XML and object formats that are incompatible with W3C standards. They are fairly easy to understand if you know HTML, and they do not have specific HTML limitations, they allow the use of Javascript and Visual Basic and are not particularly demanding on system resources. Other advantages: support for dragging and dropping with the mouse and other functions of the operating system, the availability of Gadget Designer tools for developing widgets.
There are also many drawbacks: for example, relatively limited functionality compared to other widget engines, especially in terms of visualization and interface. To work, you need to download and install a whole package of Google Desktop programs. At the moment, Google is positioning its development more as a consumer product, rather than as a platform for developers. Another drawback is the lack of support for Mac OS X.
Yahoo! Widgets (Konfabulator)
It also uses the XML format and a proprietary rendering engine. Previously, the model was not compatible with the W3C standard, but now it is gradually being fixed, so that in the future it will be possible to encode widgets on DHTML. The advantages of the Yahoo widget engine are cross-platform (it also works under Mac OS X, on Windows Vista), the maximum simplicity of coding widgets, the availability of APIs, the great functionality of widgets, tight integration with the operating system (Open, Save dialogs, multi-window widgets etc.).
Disadvantages: own programming language, different from DHTML, the need to download components (we don’t have our own operating system - Ed Voas complains), gluttony for system resources, lack of video support. Some of the shortcomings will be fixed in the next release.
The advantages of desktop widgets are that they work independently of the browser, have access to the resources of a personal computer, potentially can be used offline, fit better into the context of the operating system and all surrounding programs. Desktop widgets blur the line between the web and the desktop, extracting information from the web and displaying it on the desktop.
Newsweek magazine predicted that 2007 would be the year of widgets . This word will firmly enter our vocabulary, and widgets will become very popular. Today, there are four main platforms for widgets. Yahoo’s developer Ed Voas (Ed Voas) has published a review of these platforms, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Apple Dashboard
Microsoft Windows Vista Sidebar
Google Desktop Gadgets
Yahoo! Widgets (Konfabulator)
Apple and Microsoft platforms use the browser core (each of them) for the operation of widgets, while Google Desktop and Yahoo! Widgets are based on proprietary XML formats and rendering engines. Each approach has its pros and cons.
Apple Dashboard / Microsoft Windows Vista Sidebar A
browser-based framework makes it easy to create widgets. Existing web applications are relatively easy to modify to work on the desktop. DHTML is simple and convenient. In addition, you can use special Javascript objects and Ajax libraries in widgets. Convenient tools have been released for developers, including the new DashCode IDE system .
The disadvantages of this approach are that each widget is a complete web page, which requires significant system resources. Another problem is a tight binding to the operating system. Apple widgets work only on Apple, and Microsoft gadgets only work on Vista.
Google Desktop Gadgets
Google currently uses proprietary XML and object formats that are incompatible with W3C standards. They are fairly easy to understand if you know HTML, and they do not have specific HTML limitations, they allow the use of Javascript and Visual Basic and are not particularly demanding on system resources. Other advantages: support for dragging and dropping with the mouse and other functions of the operating system, the availability of Gadget Designer tools for developing widgets.
There are also many drawbacks: for example, relatively limited functionality compared to other widget engines, especially in terms of visualization and interface. To work, you need to download and install a whole package of Google Desktop programs. At the moment, Google is positioning its development more as a consumer product, rather than as a platform for developers. Another drawback is the lack of support for Mac OS X.
Yahoo! Widgets (Konfabulator)
It also uses the XML format and a proprietary rendering engine. Previously, the model was not compatible with the W3C standard, but now it is gradually being fixed, so that in the future it will be possible to encode widgets on DHTML. The advantages of the Yahoo widget engine are cross-platform (it also works under Mac OS X, on Windows Vista), the maximum simplicity of coding widgets, the availability of APIs, the great functionality of widgets, tight integration with the operating system (Open, Save dialogs, multi-window widgets etc.).
Disadvantages: own programming language, different from DHTML, the need to download components (we don’t have our own operating system - Ed Voas complains), gluttony for system resources, lack of video support. Some of the shortcomings will be fixed in the next release.
