Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
We should have a table comparing the differences between the two approaches.
> Factors are: I'm not sure we've ever agreed on which factors/features are important?
Will the XML even stick around after having instantiated the GUI?
You mean if the representation is "live", so you can change the GUI by changing the representation, like you can with HTML+DOM+Javascript? I thought that was a requirement?
XML or not can evoke a lot of emotions, which is why I like the DSL analogy (I can't judge how well it fits, though).
The difference between XML and EMF DOMs have practical effects, it's not just emotions. I've invested a lot of time on XML, and I was not happy to abondon it.
The DSL analogy is good, and we should be able to discuss the language part (model of UI) separate from the representation part (EMF or XML). E.g. although we could perfectly well represent XWT with EMF (since EMF can represent XML), we would still have the same abstract language (object/constructor/member/parent/... nodes).
Hallvard _______________________________________________ e4-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
