In terms of reusability and the concept of e4, using MPart for wizard pages might be sufficient. Introducing a new model MWizardPage could lead back to Eclipse 3 if you are not careful.
But I also agree with Tom saying that there might be additional attributes. Looking into WizardPage it is for example necessary to know if the wizard page is complete. But that could also be accomplished by adding new annotations. Just my two cents ;-) On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Lars Vogel <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
