Bryan Stearns wrote:
I don't see why this is necessary:I guess its just personal preference but for me I don't think this is a matter of 'learning' the xml - anyone who's done more than 10 minutes of xml in their life will just 'get it' Most parcel developers who are adding item types will mostly just be writing detail-view trees of blocks; I'm looking forward to rewriting the detail view's parcel.xml as Python, so the ready examples that developers will have will be Python. Few non-Python developers will be customizing other parts of the UI, at least in the next year or so.I'm not worried about non-python developers. The other point I haven't mentioned here is day to day maintenance of our own UI. I would argue that the xml is going to be WAY easier to maintain than the python declarations. Lets say we change the file menu around - which is easier, manipulation of the XML tree or manipulation of the Python? I would argue the xml, by a long shot, precisely because the UI is hierarchical. While I understand the issue of having two ways of doing things, I personally find the Python way to be pretty klunky for UI. I think its great for other one-off item instances, don't get me wrong.. - The syntax isn't better: while it might be familiar to HTML programmers just because it's XML, it isn't simpler or terser than the equivalent Python code given in the example.I'm not quite sure I understand the simpler/terser argument. It is actually terser: "brief and to the point" - there is less to type/read. No need to refer to .update, the current parcel in each element declaration. It is actually simpler: there are no redundant attributes like blockName or parcel name and you don't have to explicitly declare childrenBlocks. (and what's with the "<ref: 22d5dbf0-0921-11da-ab3d-00054e47c157>"?)(oops, just posted about this - it was a bad cut-n-paste) Alec |
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
