Are you sure that this is really more consistent ? Dont forget: Wizards for instance are a JFace-specific kind of thing and i always thought the application model itself should be independent of SWT, JFace. Or do you think of a more abstract way of integration and if yes how this could look like?
2013/10/9 Lars Vogel <[email protected]> > Having dialogs and wizards in the model would definitely be more > consistent IMHO. > Am 09.10.2013 11:50 schrieb "Tom Schindl" <[email protected]>: > > On 07.10.13 16:50, Markus A. Kuppe wrote: >> > On 10/07/2013 04:37 PM, Lars Vogel wrote: >> >> I personally think the lack of Pojo programming support for the >> Eclipse IDE >> >> is preventing a larger ecosystem to provide Eclipse 4 extensions. So >> your >> >> work started for POJO views in >> >> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=356511 was really great. >> >> Having the same of handlers would help. Maybe it could be used to >> build a >> >> perspective switcher which works in the IDE and the RCP applications. >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > the same goes for PreferencePages. Ideally, the preference page extesion >> > point ("org.eclipse.ui.preferencePages") would accept POJOs and not just >> > instances implementing org.eclipse.ui.IWorkbenchPreferencePage (similar >> > to bug #356511). >> >> Before doing this I'd like us to discuss in more general if Dialog & >> Wizards should not get part of the model! >> >> Tom >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- Mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.teufel.net
_______________________________________________ e4-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
