My biggest pro is keybinding hacks are gone!

Tom

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 14.01.2014 um 16:37 schrieb Eric Moffatt <[email protected]>:
> 
> Marc, thanks dude you beat me to it. The idea was indeed to bring Dialogs / 
> Wizards under DI (like a custom Detached Window). This will not only allow 
> folks to use the inherently simpler DI patterns but should also facilitate 
> the (re)use of Parts / Commands within the Dialog since they're DI-based...
> 
> Doug, early on we decided that modeling all the way down to the widget level 
> was too deep (i.e. too much work...;-) to own and there are other mechanisms 
> (i.e. WindowBuilder, XWT...). I don't believe that there's anything in the 
> current approach that would prevent those that are interested from using the 
> widget editor of their choice when defining the dialog's structure.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> <graycol.gif>Marc Teufel ---01/14/2014 10:15:43 AM---When I implement Dialogs 
> these days, it is not that easy to bring it together with Dependency Inject
> 
> <ecblank.gif>
> From:
> <ecblank.gif>
> Marc Teufel <[email protected]>
> <ecblank.gif>
> To:
> <ecblank.gif>
> E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]>,
> <ecblank.gif>
> Date:
> <ecblank.gif>
> 01/14/2014 10:15 AM
> <ecblank.gif>
> Subject:
> <ecblank.gif>
> Re: [e4-dev] MDialog / MWizard will be removed in M5
> <ecblank.gif>
> Sent by:
> <ecblank.gif>
> [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> When I implement Dialogs these days, it is not that easy to bring it together 
> with Dependency Injection. When a Dialog is Part of the Application Model I 
> hope it is easy to get dependencies in the same way I can do it with a Part. 
> Nowadays when I want to get e.g. a Service into a Dialog i have two Options:
> 
> 1. Drop in the Service manually cia a Setter or the Constructor of the Dialog
> 2. Use ContextInjectionFactory.make 
> 
> When a Dialog is Part of the Application Model and if I understand the new 
> APIs correctly I simply need to define the MDialog in my model, connect the 
> Dialog with a Pojo-Class via its Contribution-URI and afterwards I can just
> do a 
> 
> @Inject MyService service
> 
> to get the Service the standard way...
> 
> 
> I am not sure if the new MDialogs/MWizards is adressing this (I have to less 
> informations about it actually, what Bug is it?) but this is the " problem " 
> I personally have actually with Dialogs in my daily work.
> 
> 
> Marc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2014/1/14 Doug Schaefer <[email protected]>
> I’ll ask a naïve newby question :). If we want to model dialogs and wizards, 
> why not go all the way down to widgets? Other than they lifecycle of a modal 
> window, what benefit does modelling these get you?
> 
> Doug.
> 
> From: Marc Teufel <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]>
> Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 12:43 AM
> To: E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [e4-dev] MDialog / MWizard will be removed in M5
> 
> Same for me here, please try keep it. I am working on a bigger business 
> solution based on pure e4 and I am already dealing with Dialogs (and Wizards) 
> so I know about the pain with them... I am interested in getting these new 
> features into the Luna Release because I hope things are getting easier by 
> integrating Dialogs and Wizards into the Application Model. If you are 
> interested, I can offer to test/implement the new API in my solution. The 
> only problem I actually have is, i don't know where to start. Is there any 
> documentation of the new API, Wikipages, Samples or atleast Unit-Tests where 
> I can see how the new elements have to be used. Also interesting: Does the 
> Application Model Editor already support theenhancements or do I have to 
> write the XML manually by myself ?  
> 
> Greetings, Marc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2014/1/13 Paweł Doleciński <[email protected]>
> Hi folks,
> 
> please do not do it! Wizards in model is what I was waiting for. We've got a 
> real use case for it, as we need to model workflows. Wizard seems to be a 
> perfect solution for us, especially if you can model it and display as a part.
> 
> Perhaps, if you could wait a bit more we might present an use case and 
> general solution based on our special case. Maybe someone would be 
> interested. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Paweł.
> 
> --
> Pozdrawiam / Best regards
> Paweł Doleciński
> 
> 
> On 13 January 2014 21:58, Tom Schindl <[email protected]> wrote:
> What is the maximum timeframe? I really want to keep them and make use of 
> them in my javafx port!
> 
> Cann't we mark them as experimental?
> 
> Tom
> 
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> 
> Am 13.01.2014 um 21:22 schrieb Eric Moffatt <[email protected]>:
> 
> Folks, since we've received no relevant feedback on using these new model 
> elements we anticipate removing them for Luna. The model should only contain 
> elements for which there is a clear use and at least one implemented use 
> case, not for things that *might* be useful at some point. We can always add 
> it back later (post-luna) once it has become clearer what the usage patterns 
> are.
> 
> In thinking about this I'm wondering whether we should be doing the new stuff 
> first in an incubator model based off of the main UIElements.ecore. This 
> would allow for investigations of various proposed model shapes while not 
> churning the API model, what do you think ?
> 
> If anybody has examples and wants to make a case for keeping the elements in 
> the model come forward now .
> 
> Onwards,
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mail: [email protected]
> Web: http://www.teufel.net 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to