> 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?
SWT has already done this work. > >> 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. So do I until I meet XAML! > > 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). This is useful: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=260289 yves > > Hallvard > _______________________________________________ > e4-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev > _______________________________________________ e4-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
