> <
tom.schindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
tom.schindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Can you clarify this? I don't see a problem with going through the DOM.
> I'd argue that someone is not even getting access anymore to the REALLY
> widget when he/she is using declarative UI.
>
> You may ask why does one not have access to the widget:
> a) Did you ever see a WebDeveloper trying to access the real
> Native-Gecko-Button? SWT is just a renderer of the widget
> like Gecko, ... is in a browser.
>
> b) The DOM you are seeing and the Widget-Hierarchy don't necessary have
> a one-to-one mapping. E.g. let's say I want to have fancy border
> drawing in SWT then my DOM looks like this:
>
> <composite border="black 2px" layout="grid">
> <label text="BlaBla 1" />
> <label text="BlaBla 2" />
> </composite>
>
> whereas the widget structure is like this:
>
> Composite (FillLayout=margin=2, backgroundColor=black)
> Composite(GridLayout)
> Label
> Label
>
> c) What do you script against? The real widget is not right IMHO because
> of 2 and 3
>
> The above example of a border is the reason I'm not a friend anymore of
> a low-level dialect like XSWT but favor some higher level of Declarative
> UI. As long as I programm against the high-level DOM it doesn't bother
> me how a feature gets implemented at the widget-level
> (widget-composition, gc-drawing, ....). Naturally the above border could
> get implemented also by subclassing Composite + PaintListener but I
> guess you'll get the point, right? By the way how is such a problem
> solved when the border definition is coming from an CSS-Stylesheet?
>
> When we talk about modeling the workbench it even gets worse because
> e.g. a StackedPart can get rendered by a completely different
> widget-type for example:
> - CTabFolder
> - TabFolder
> - Nebula-PShelf
> - ...
>
>
> Tom
>
> Kevin McGuire schrieb:
> >
> > Actually this approach concerns me: if I go through the model, or go
> > directly against SWT, I get different notification. It could easily
> > lead to bugs in application code. I would also argue that the
> model is
> > then no longer a model of SWT, but rather, a model of an enhanced SWT
> > which doesn't exist.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Tom Schindl <
tom.schindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx