Hi Patrick,
> I wanted to weigh in on this from an RCP trainer/evangelist
> perspective. My personal desire is that e4 provide increased
> flexibility while at the same time simplifying things (and shortening
> the learning curve). In my opinion, adding modeling and EMF to the
> list of things that an RCP developer needs to learn would make things
> much more complex. I know we are already using EMF for the modeled
> workbench, but I'm still hoping that EMF will not become a pre-
> requisite skill for RCP developers.
I agree with these goals. WRT the modelled workbench UI work in e4, I
believe it's true presently that the average RCP developer does not need
to learn EMF, but it depends on the task.
If you're assembling a UI (create parts, toolbar and menu items, etc.) you
presently must use the EMF editor, but that doesn't really mean learning
much if any of EMF (I would be a good example :> ). And conceivably we
could replace it with another editor that didn't expose EMF at all.
If you're creating new part types (e.g. a new kind of trim, some kind of
part that sits between workbench window and perspective, etc.), that is if
you're extending our model, then yes you'll need to learn EMF. But I
think this case will be very special, akin to being an expect at hacking
the presentation framework (which too I think most RCP developers should
successfully be able to avoid).
Thus, I think the right blend is powerful representation to facility
modularity, flexibility, and stronger tools, with access to that
representation for the small percentage who want to do highly
sophisticated customization. Simple things remain simple, complex things
become possible.
Regards,
Kevin
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
