johnf wrote: > 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. Then let people misuse it. And remember that your meaning of "misuse" will be different from my meaning. > 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! A suite of builders would be dynamite, but it isn't either/or. -- pkm ~ http://paulmcnett.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-dev
