I agree. IMO the EditWizards have become one of the unique selling points of MMBase and one of the things I like the most, next to the taglib. The speed in which a maintenance app is written or generated using the EditWizards is one of the reasons for me to use or recommend MMBase over other O/R-mapping frameworks. I also noticed that a lot of developers have a mixed relations towards the EditWizards since declarative development and 4GL is just no fun, or because they get scared by complexity of the code. But I think it is inevitable for such generic code to be hard to understand. The bigger the reward once you get a grasp of it.
But what do you mean by abandoning the XML-part ? That's what makes it so powerful imho. Also EditWizard slowness (unrelated to bridge slowness) is not a real problem anymore in 1.7 afaik. Rob Vermeulen wrote: > I noticed that many people are thinking about making new MMBase > wizards. > The current implementation seems to be to difficult to use, unstable, > not flexible, it needs a lot of resources, etc.. While I don't mind people thinking about better solutions, I would not just name something unstable or inflexible because you don't know how to use it optimally. I find the wizrads are quite useful (I use them all the time), and can be used in many situations. They do have a learning curve for those who create the xmls that is unwanted, would require a better error handler, are slow due to the xml processing, and I feel there is a need for a way to plug in your own events or handlers. I am aware that it would be better to write new code than rewrite the old one, but I take offence at the way people like to bash the wizards without ever properly learnign how to use them. That is not a productive way of going about it. Personally I think that if you want to improve the wizards, you might need to abandon the whole xml part of them, because it is that bit that slows things down and makes it hard to add new elements. Otoh, I think it would be useful if we can maintain the look and feel (to avoid another learning curve for users, which is, in my experience, quite small for the wizards). I also think one should at least concider a tool to convert old wizards to new ones (that is, if we choose a new format to define them, which seems to be the case here). -- Pierre van Rooden Mediapark, C 107 tel. +31 (0)35 6772815 "Never summon anything bigger than your head." -----------------------Disclaimer------------------------- Dit bericht (met bijlagen) is met grote zorgvuldigheid samengesteld. Voor mogelijke onjuistheid en/of onvolledigheid van de hierin verstrekte informatie kan Kennisnet geen aansprakelijkheid aanvaarden, evenmin kunnen aan de inhoud van dit bericht (met bijlagen) rechten worden ontleend. De inhoud van dit bericht (met bijlagen) kan vertrouwelijke informatie bevatten en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde van dit bericht. Indien u niet de beoogde ontvanger van dit bericht bent, verzoekt Kennisnet u dit bericht te verwijderen, eventuele bijlagen niet te openen en wijst Kennisnet u op de onrechtmatigheid van het gebruiken, kopi�ren of verspreiden van de inhoud van dit bericht (met bijlagen). This message (with attachments) is given in good faith. Kennisnet cannot assume any responsibility for the accuracy or reliability of the information contained in this message (with attachments), nor shall the information be construed as constituting any obligation on the part of Kennisnet. The information contained in this message (with attachments) may be confidential or privileged and is only intended for the use of the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested by Kennisnet to delete this message (with attachments) without opening it and you are notified by Kennisnet that any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information contained in this message (with attachments) is strictly prohibited and unlawful. ----------------------------------------------------------
