| Transaction Editors [message #418206] |
Fri, 04 April 2008 21:07  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: jconlon.apache.org
My EMF RCP application utilizes several I/O streams to update model
documents and for this reason I have grown somewhat dependent on the
Transaction Editor variation (based on the transactional editing domain).
I used to maintain both a generated and customized non-transaction
Editor for my application but have moved most customizations to my
TransEd version. (Tables, utilities, etc.) Users are mostly using these
now.
So what does the future hold for Transaction based Editor versus it's
more ubiquitous Jet generated sibling? Any Jet work being done for it,
or should I do it myself?
BTW - if anyone thinks that (the Transaction Editor) is evil please give
me feedback before I introducer her to mom.
best regards,
John
|
|
|
| Re: Transaction Editors [message #418207 is a reply to message #418206] |
Fri, 04 April 2008 21:52  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: cdamus.ca.ibm.com
Hi, John,
See some replies in-line, below.
Cheers,
Christian
John E. Conlon wrote:
> My EMF RCP application utilizes several I/O streams to update model
> documents and for this reason I have grown somewhat dependent on the
> Transaction Editor variation (based on the transactional editing domain).
>
> I used to maintain both a generated and customized non-transaction
> Editor for my application but have moved most customizations to my
> TransEd version. (Tables, utilities, etc.) Users are mostly using these
> now.
>
> So what does the future hold for Transaction based Editor versus it's
> more ubiquitous Jet generated sibling? Any Jet work being done for it,
> or should I do it myself?
Perhaps you'd like to contribute some ideas (and code?) to this bug:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/211524
:-)
> BTW - if anyone thinks that (the Transaction Editor) is evil please give
> me feedback before I introducer her to mom.
I'm afraid I don't understand this remark. How can an example be evil? Its
only purpose is to demonstrate how to apply some of the constructs of the
Transaction API; it isn't intended to be production-quality, but a guide to
the development of a production-quality editor.
> best regards,
> John
|
|
|
| Re: Transaction Editors [message #418212 is a reply to message #418207] |
Sat, 05 April 2008 20:38 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: jconlon.apache.org
Hi Christian,
Christian W. Damus wrote:
> Hi, John,
>
> See some replies in-line, below.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>
>
> John E. Conlon wrote:
>
>> My EMF RCP application utilizes several I/O streams to update model
>> documents and for this reason I have grown somewhat dependent on the
>> Transaction Editor variation (based on the transactional editing domain).
>>
>> I used to maintain both a generated and customized non-transaction
>> Editor for my application but have moved most customizations to my
>> TransEd version. (Tables, utilities, etc.) Users are mostly using these
>> now.
>>
>> So what does the future hold for Transaction based Editor versus it's
>> more ubiquitous Jet generated sibling? Any Jet work being done for it,
>> or should I do it myself?
>
> Perhaps you'd like to contribute some ideas (and code?) to this bug:
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/211524
>
> :-)
I agree with what Ed said in https://bugs.eclipse.org/211524
'Just having a template that folks can use with dynamic
templates to provide something like this would be pretty helpful in any
case.'
Perhaps just a template? I will see what I can do over the next few
weeks with my limited JET skills.
>
>> BTW - if anyone thinks that (the Transaction Editor) is evil please give
>> me feedback before I introducer her to mom.
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand this remark. How can an example be evil? Its
> only purpose is to demonstrate how to apply some of the constructs of the
> Transaction API; it isn't intended to be production-quality, but a guide to
> the development of a production-quality editor.
Sorry for my poor attempt at a joke, but I was trying to solicit
critical feedback from others whether I should consider other
alternatives to transaction based editors.
Just seeking to validate my my direction.
best regards,
John
|
|
|
| Re: Transaction Editors [message #418213 is a reply to message #418212] |
Sat, 05 April 2008 20:40 |
 Ed Merks
Messages: 33141
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
John,
Even if you just took a copy of the generated editor, and then a copy
after you've made the changes, that (the delta between the two) would be
very value for me to be able to turn it into a template since this would
be exactly the conditional code that would be generated.
John E. Conlon wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
>
>
>
> Christian W. Damus wrote:
>> Hi, John,
>>
>> See some replies in-line, below.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> John E. Conlon wrote:
>>
>>> My EMF RCP application utilizes several I/O streams to update model
>>> documents and for this reason I have grown somewhat dependent on the
>>> Transaction Editor variation (based on the transactional editing
>>> domain).
>>>
>>> I used to maintain both a generated and customized non-transaction
>>> Editor for my application but have moved most customizations to my
>>> TransEd version. (Tables, utilities, etc.) Users are mostly using
>>> these
>>> now.
>>>
>>> So what does the future hold for Transaction based Editor versus it's
>>> more ubiquitous Jet generated sibling? Any Jet work being done for it,
>>> or should I do it myself?
>>
>> Perhaps you'd like to contribute some ideas (and code?) to this bug:
>>
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/211524
>>
>> :-)
> I agree with what Ed said in https://bugs.eclipse.org/211524
> 'Just having a template that folks can use with dynamic
> templates to provide something like this would be pretty helpful in
> any case.'
>
> Perhaps just a template? I will see what I can do over the next few
> weeks with my limited JET skills.
>
>>
>>> BTW - if anyone thinks that (the Transaction Editor) is evil please
>>> give
>>> me feedback before I introducer her to mom.
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't understand this remark. How can an example be
>> evil? Its
>> only purpose is to demonstrate how to apply some of the constructs of
>> the
>> Transaction API; it isn't intended to be production-quality, but a
>> guide to
>> the development of a production-quality editor.
>
> Sorry for my poor attempt at a joke, but I was trying to solicit
> critical feedback from others whether I should consider other
> alternatives to transaction based editors.
>
> Just seeking to validate my my direction.
>
> best regards,
> John
Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03342 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
