On Monday 18 December 2006 11:16, Paul McNett wrote: > johnf wrote: > > Sorry Nate I disagree with respect of extending AppWizard. I would like > > to see the AppWizard dropped. Let me say I use AppWizard everytime I > > want to test the data interfaces but that's all. > > I believe Nate was suggesting documenting AppWizard, for the purpose of > telling of its strengths and weaknesses. To summarize the various > viewpoints as I see them (people can correct me if I have it wrong): > > Paul: Keep AppWizard as-is, get it documented > Ed: Eventually extend AppWizard to cdxml; get it documented > Nate: Get it documented > John: Drop AppWizard > Carl: Make it into something better, faster, stronger. Extend! > > I don't understand wanting to drop something that *at least* lets you > test data interfaces, and *at most* gives you a skeleton for a > highly-scalable application. I do understand the benefits of getting it > documented, so it can be seen in its proper context vis-a-vis Dabo itself. I do in fact use the AppWizard for testing. I just think it is not the best thing to provide a Dabo newbie. I'm with Ed in his assessment as to the mis-use of AppWizard. If you want to document it great but I'm sure Ed is right. AppWizard will be mis-used.
Creating builders might be a better way to go. Where small builders help create a data connection (CxnEditor.py), BizObjEditor.py, ClassDesigner.py. And then a builder to put them together. Just a thought! -- John Fabiani _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-dev
