> For the model itself how about both MDialog & MWizard extend MWindow
(since they show up as windows). Whether or not we also need the MWizard to
have a
> specific collection of MWizardPages or if we can just have the logic
manipulate an MPartStack using ids is open for me, there's are good reasons
for either way. The
> MApplication would be extended to have two new collections; 'dialogs' and
'wizards'.

I would agree with Wim that MWizardPage might not be necessary. MPart
appears at the moment sufficient. I also like the idea of re-using MPartStack
for the wizard.




2013/10/9 Eric Moffatt <[email protected]>

> Modeling the Dialogs and Wizards for an application is a good thing to do.
> If you consider the model to represent the agnostic description of what UI
> bits the app needs in order to function then it makes perfect sense to say
> something along the lines of:
>
> "My Contacts app needs the Contacts window, an Open Contact List dialog
> and a Create Contact wizard"
>
> This is a proper indication to anybody wishing to implement that
> application on *any* platform they they'll need to supply the rendered UI
> for those components.
>
> Before getting into the model specifics I'd like to look at what Dialogs
> and Wizards *are*...
>
> - They show up in their own windows
> - They both represent requests to gather information from the User
> - They're transient; opened by the IDE -> closed by the User
>
> So, the specifics of how they're modeled aside, how do the elements
> communicate the results back to the IDE ? The pattern for creation seems
> fairly straightforward; add all necessary input parameters into the
> 'localContext' used to render the Dialog / Wizard. It's less clear how the
> IDE (app) then retrieves the result.
>
> For the model itself how about both MDialog & MWizard extend MWindow
> (since they show up as windows). Whether or not we also need the MWizard to
> have a specific collection of MWizardPages or if we can just have the logic
> manipulate an MPartStack using ids is open for me, there's are good reasons
> for either way. The MApplication would be extended to have two new
> collections; 'dialogs' and 'wizards'.
>
> Note that there's a beneficial side-effect of modeling the Dialogs /
> Wizards; this structure makes it completely natural to embed parts into
> both Dialogs and Wizard(page)s. One of the initial problems I faced during
> my demos for this was that I had to 'fake' the embedded part being in the
> model (see EModelService#hostElement); if the MDialog were modeled this
> would no longer be an issue.
>
> Thanks folks, this is exactly the type of discussion I was hoping for,
> Eric
>
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Tom Schindl ---10/09/2013 09:15:51
> AM---Not strictly speaking but maybe we need some extra attributes]Tom
> Schindl ---10/09/2013 09:15:51 AM---Not strictly speaking but maybe we need
> some extra attributes later on there so I would model it exp
>
>
>
>    From:
>
>
> Tom Schindl <[email protected]>
>
>    To:
>
>
> [email protected],
>
>    Date:
>
>
> 10/09/2013 09:15 AM
>
>    Subject:
>
>
> Re: [e4-dev] Now's the time to figure out what we need in e4
>
>
>    Sent by:
>
>
> [email protected]
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Not strictly speaking but maybe we need some extra attributes later on
> there so I would model it explicitly.
>
> Rethink my proposal would change to:
>
> MWizard extend MElementContainer<MWizardPage> {
>
> }
>
> MWizardPage extends MPart {
>
> }
>
> For MDialog we could also think of
>
> MDialog {
>   MPart part
> }
>
> which is probably better alignment with a MWizard then.
>
> Tom
>
> On 09.10.13 15:03, Wim Jongman wrote:
> > I think a MWizard is an excellent idea but do we need MWizardPages?
> > Having wizard pages is specific to an implementation of a wizard.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Wim
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Tom Schindl <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>>
> wrote:
> >
> >     The concept is universal and has nothing to do with SWT / JFace.
> >
> >     MDialog extends MPart {
> >
> >     }
> >
> >     MWizard extends MElementContainer<MWizardPage> {
> >
> >     }
> >
> >     MWizardPage {
> >
> >     }
> >
> >     MPart extends MWizardPage, .... {
> >
> >     }
> >
> >     Hack you could even see a wizard to be a specialication of
> >     MPartStackContainer!
> >
> >     Tom
> >
> >     On 09.10.13 14:40, Marc Teufel wrote:
> >     > 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]
> >     <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> <
> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>
> >     <mailto:[email protected] <[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]
> >     <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>
> >     <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>
> >     <mailto:[email protected] <[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] 
> > <mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>
> >
> >     <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]> <
> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>>
> >     >         https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     _______________________________________________
> >     >     e4-dev mailing list
> >     >     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>
> >
> >     <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]> <
> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>>
> >     >     https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > --
> >     > Mail: [email protected] 
> > <mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>
> >
> >     <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]> <
> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>>
> >     > Web: http://www.teufel.net
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > e4-dev mailing list
> >     > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>
> >
> >     > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
> >     >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     e4-dev mailing list
> >     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] <[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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> e4-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
>
>

<<ecblank.gif>>

<<graycol.gif>>

_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev

Reply via email to