[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [e4-dev] how to contribute to toolkit model ?
|
We should have a table comparing the differences between the two
approaches.
Factors are:
- How well does it integrate with the modeled workbench?
- How long until it is ready?
- SWT as pseudo-DOM versus EMF-generated classes as pseudo-DOM. Will
the XML even stick around after having instantiated the GUI?
XML or not can evoke a lot of emotions, which is why I like the DSL
analogy (I can't judge how well it fits, though).
On Sep 2, 2009, at 15:01 , Paul Webster wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:37 AM, <yves.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As I've argued before, an important strength of an EMF-based
representation is how well UI model instances can be managed by
existing
(and future) Eclipse tools. (EMF is almost becoming a native Eclipse
object model, now.)
I suppose you have a car, by which you can go anywhere (on land of
course). Can you use it as a boat in ocean ?
Just a note that I wouldn't get distracted by this line of discussion.
TM is a DSL backed by EMF. XWT is a DSL backed by XML at the moment.
But as Yves mentioned XWT is model based (compared to XSWT).
That means XWT can be backed by EMF just as easily (EMF is in the
business of instantiating models, and I doubt that XWT contains a
model that can't be represented in EMF).
As McQ said, e4 needs to both include and enable declarative
technology. The Modeled Workbench should be able to instantiate
contributed parts that contain declarative UIs. I think there is
still a lot of work in this area to find the correct, flexible plugin
mechanism and usecases that show tooling supporting the development
workflow.
PW
--
Paul Webster
Hi floor. Make me a sammich! - GIR
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
--
Axel.Rauschmayer@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/~rauschma/
