Hi Hallvard and all,
Just few words about wazaabi and some comments :
First of all, there is now 2 main projects : wazaabi which is the live EMF
based UI framework and another one (provisionnaly) called "wazaabind" used
to bind UI and domain models. Its name is provisional, because, as I
explained in a previous post, we realized that it is more a live m2m live /
workflow engine than just another binder. It is based on a extended BPMN
metamodel and we start to use it as a replacement of existing generation
tools and I think that in the next months we will be able to have, for
instance, a live wazaabi UI model (live) transformed into a XAML model and
back and forth.
Regarding the suggestion of contributing to E4, it will be with a great
interest. However, there is some concerns about the existing work :
* Wazaabi does not target only SWT, there is an existing proof of concept
with Swing and i would like to port it to GWT also (since Tom succeded to
use EMF on GWT :-) )
Targeting multiple platform automatically induces sharing parts of
metamodel, therefore abstract layer(s).
* wazaabi engines (the viewers) respect the separation of metamodel layers.
I guess that people want to focus only to SWT will find this extra code too
heavy.
Of course, all of these technical details could be fixed.
Regarding the very interesting debate about XML and EMF, I would like to
reassure people about the "complexity" of EMF. Below is a portion of code
creating a composite and adding a text :
Composite comp = WidgetFactory.eINSTANCE.createComposite();
Text text = WidgetFactory.eINSTANCE.createText();
comp.getChildren().add(text);
text.setText("hello world");
Like in XML, factories are used to create Widgets and like in XML, we need
specific lines of code for reading and writing resources.
Best Regards,
Olivier
2009/9/2 Hallvard Trætteberg <[email protected]>
> Boris Bokowski wrote:
>
>>
>> A couple of comments:
>>
>
> Thanks for taking the time to comment.
>
> 1. We don't need to pick a "winner" or a "loser".
>> 2. Fragmentation is not good, in the long term.
>>
>
> I think we at some point must choose which technology is prefered or
> endorsed, to avoid confusion. There was a question about this at the
> webinar, and I bet there will be questions at ESE, too (both XWT and TM
> talks were accepted). There's nothing preventing the "loser" from continuing
> the development in some other context. So there is really no loss as seen
> from the community, since both will be available, and that's what counts,
> isn't it?
>
> The differences between TM and XWT are due to different opinions about what
> problem we are solving and hence the requirements of the technology. Most
> seem to agree that we need declarative UI in e4, but few are explicit about
> what that entails. I wish others, like the Alcatel Lucents representative,
> could say something about what characteristics the technology should have.
>
> 3. Real clients are more important than theoretical advantages of one
>> technology over the other. Based on my limited knowledge on who uses which
>> framework, Wazaabi seems to be ahead of both TM and XWT at this point, but
>> I'd love to be proven wrong...
>>
>
> As I mentioned in a previous post, I almost chose to work on Wazaabi,
> because it is based on the same idea and was there first. However, I wanted
> to understand the technical issues, so I started on TM instead. Then I
> contributed it to e4, to show the advantages of the approach of a live,
> EMF-based UI model. If Wazaabi had been contributed to e4 at that time, I
> probably would have supported it instead, since the characteristics of the
> technology (live and EMF-based) is more important than it being mine.
>
> Perhaps a merge of Wazaabi and TM is the best approach, if Moïses is
> interested?
>
> 4. A few of the comments in this discussion came across as being
>> protective of your respective technology, and not as cooperative as I would
>> like them to be.
>>
>
> I'm sorry to hear that, but I understand that I seem so. I've really tried
> hard to avoid being/seeming protective. However, the approaches seem pretty
> incompatible, so I've never considered it realistic that we join forces.
> Instead, I've tried to provide reasons for my choice(s) that could be judged
> by others.
>
> Btw, there will be an e4 Symposium at Eclipse Summit Europe (Ludwigsburg,
>> Germany, October 27-29):
>> http://www.eclipsecon.org/summiteurope2009/sessions/sessions?id=981
>> Hope to see you there!
>>
>
> I'm looking forward to it!
>
> Hallvard
>
> P.S. Good night, it's almost tomorrow here in GMT+2.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
