John,

Just because Acualize supports and reads JSR-57 does not preclude it from
supporting the simple syntax of SWIXML. I am adding SWIXML type tag handlers to
Axualize right this moment. It is a very simple matter, though to be honest I
find it completely redundant when you see how to use aliases in Axualize. You
also have to look at who builds UIs and what role they play in an application
development. At some level to really effectively use Swing or any other toolkit
to build an application you have to be a developer at some level. If the
interfaces you build are very simple you need not know much, but when you need
powerful interfaces you simply must have the skill to back that up. Axualize is
simple. Keeping it simple is a project goal. One way to keep things simple is
not to reinvent, but to extend. That is what Axualize does. It allows you to
extend JSR-57 even to the point of using SWIXML type tags if you like.

I am not suggesting that SWIXML change. If you all are happy with it as it is
then I suggest you keep it as it is. I am simply sharing my experience and
extending an invitation to those developers who see in the Axualize tool
something they could use.

BTW I have converted several HTML designers to very promising GUI dvelopers by
introducing them to Axualize. Axualize is much easier to learn than straight
JSR-57 syntax thanks to it's use of aliases and custom TagHandlers. All it
takes is willingness to read a up on Swing which you would have to do with
SWIXML as well. The included schemas in Axualize give developers "templates" of
a sort for creating their documents. Now that is truly keeping it simple. Also
not having to compile code to handle events is keeping it simple. In many ways
Axualize keeps things significantly simpler than SWIXML by leaving far less to
the developer to do himself outside the tool. Deploying an Axualize app after a
change is truly as simple as moving the xml to the place you want it. It really
doesn't get much simpler than that. You see, having flexible options and
features does not have to introduce complexity. In the case of Axualize it
actually makes things simpler.

WR,
Russ

--- John Piersol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
> 
> I'll like to put a NO vote out there for the idea of turning SwixML into
> a JSR57. The syntax of JSR57 really is much more complex then SwixML
> from a non programmers point of view. I think JSR57 is great and should
> be the basis for all the IDE's GUI tools out there but that's not what I
> thought SwixML was about. Axualize sounds like a great product and I
> hope it gets the attention it deserves but if I wanted to use Axualize
> I'ld use it. Axualize and JSR57 are directed at a different crowd (the
> programmer) than SwixML (the dialog designer or user). I want the
> simplest xml that covers 90% of the cases (actually 100% of mine). I'm
> hoping users of my application (as well as non programming designers)
> will be able to make custom changes to dialogs by simply opening the xml
> and making the changes. When designers (who know HTML) look at JSR57
> output they're really put off. When I show them SwixML they instantly
> understand (no training necessary). The application user and dialog
> designer is the crowd I'm looking to address.
> 
>  
> 
> Also, as a programmer, I love the simplicity of the SwixML model. Most
> users of SwixML code will not be nearly as skilled programmers as the
> others on this list. A simply model that everyone can understand is
> always a plus. I was able to start making my own dialogs and adding
> custom tags almost instantly with very little effort. I don't care about
> size of lib but it is a pretty good indicator of a design patterns
> complexity. SwixML is simpler then the others. I plan on using products
> based on JSR57 but just not in the same capacity.
> 
>  
> 
> Just a users vote and opinion on why I like the current model of SwixML.
> Let's not mess it up by trying to make it all things to all people.
> KISS.
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Reply via email to