Kaiping, Fully aggre with you !!!
And regarding to your start of the discussion, and according that : 1°) "new Label(..." is a way of using existing EMF metamodel, and not provided de facto by any standard XML implementation, 2°) "<label text="..." " is a way doable way of persisting EMF (could be parametrized without any designer/developer action) That means that EMF should be chosen over XML for UIs declarations, no ? :-D Cheers, Olivier 2009/10/9 <[email protected]>: >> I'm following very interested the discussion about UI on this list but I > don't understand the difference in quality about the declaration language > of a UI. To me it's absolutely irrelevant > if I declare a label with > >> new Label(... > >> or with > >> <label text="..." > >> That's syntactic sugar. > > For me, the difference is fundamental. > > The "new Label(..." is computer programming language (in this case Java) > dependent and computer programming language declaration. > > And the "<label text="..." is declarative fonctional declaration which is > independent of computer programming language. > > We can analyse the "<label text="..." very easily with others computer > language like C++, C" or JavaScript etc.) and it isn't the case of ""new > Label(...". > > On conclusion, the "<label text="..." is more universal et declarative than > the "new Label(..." > > > Kaiping FANG > Responsable Architecture des systèmes d’Information > Systems Architecture Manager > CCR > 31, rue de Courcelles > 75008 PARIS – France > > Tél : +33 (0) 1 44 35 38 01 > Fax : +33 (0) 1 44 13 77 36 > Mobile : +33 (0) 6 71 29 95 75 > E-mail : [email protected] > > www.ccr.fr > > > |------------> > | De : | > |------------> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |"Tom Seidel" <[email protected]> > | > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |------------> > | A : | > |------------> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |"'E4 Project developer mailing list'" <[email protected]> > | > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |------------> > | Date: | > |------------> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |09/10/2009 13:47 > | > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |------------> > | Objet : | > |------------> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |AW: [e4-dev] Why XML UI is important for us > | > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |------------> > | Envoyé | > | par : | > |------------> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |[email protected] > | > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > > > > > I'm following very interested the discussion about UI on this list but I > don't understand the difference in quality about the declaration language > of a UI. To me it's absolutely irrelevant if I declare a label with > > new Label(... > > or with > > <label text="..." > > That's syntactic sugar. > > Your issues with developing UIs (Skill, Guideline,...) will not be resolved > by switching to a xml declared UI, they will be just moved. > > The fact that people are more familiar with XML than with EMF/SWT/whatever > makes no sense, you also have to "learn" how to declare an UI in XML. > The problems in UI development is IMHO not the declaration syntax but the > separation of UI and the business domain. From my experience (I'm working > as architect also for insurance, authority,...) the best way to improve > quality of UIs is an enforced architecture to separate UI declaration > (regardless of which technology) and binding the UI to a domain model. But > this is an issue in architecture, not in technology. If you separate these > two things you will resolve most of your problems. Your lower skilled > developers (whatever this means) can use GUI-Designer-Tools to create the > UI satisfying the guidelines without knowing anything about the > business-code. Then your application developers can bind the model to the > designed ui (with APIs like Riena or Databinding). > > Like I said, the challenges in UI development is not the UI itself, but the > integration into an application and the binding to a domain model. > Therefore Eclipse already provides very good frameworks and APIs. Take a > look at Riena; its mission is (among other things) to provide a framework > for building such applications. > > The fact that EMF is IMHO a better choice for a declarative UI is diverse > (many advantages were already mentioned). > Take a look at the tools that are built upon EMF and compare them with > tools for raw XML editing. I think everybody has already searched for a > typo within a xml file. Creating new tools for EMF Models is also much > simpler than for a xml block (which is also essential for e4-tooling). > The next thing is that XML serialization is just another feature of EMF. > Everything you have declared in a XML file can be represented in an EMF > Model, so the discussion itself makes no sense due to the fact that XML is > a subset of EMF. > The assumption that XML is better for simple cases I cannot confirm from my > experience, also with development-teams that have no EMF experience it > makes no big difference. > > > Last but not least I still have a feedback for the current e4: Development > with e4 is a great new experience. Great work :) > > Best Regards, > Tom Seidel > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im > Auftrag von [email protected] > Gesendet: Freitag, 9. Oktober 2009 12:10 > An: E4 Project developer mailing list > Betreff: Re: [e4-dev] Why XML UI is important for us > > > [email protected] wrote: > >> In my experience with XSWT (similar to XWT) and the EMF-based TM, XML >> is simple for simple cases, but very complex when the problem grows, >> while EMF is slightly more complex for the simple cases, but scales >> very well with increasing complexity. > > In our insurance application developpment avec 1500 UI forms, we hava 90 % > of simple case and 10 % of complex case in UI developement. > > We perfer the simplicity of XWT than the EMF based approch because there > isn't enough good skilled java developers in my team who can master EMF > approch. > > You have to know that the skill of programming of application developers is > very limited. But, they know very well the fonctionality of the > applications. > > So, the simplicity is one "must" for us. > > Kaiping FANG > > Systems Architecture Manager > CCR > 31, rue de Courcelles > 75008 PARIS – France > > Tél : +33 (0) 1 44 35 38 01 > Fax : +33 (0) 1 44 13 77 36 > Mobile : +33 (0) 6 71 29 95 75 > E-mail : [email protected] > > www.ccr.fr > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ e4-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
