I think you're reading too much into the word "data." All I'm after is a uniform way to find out what value a widget is showing, without my controller having to know specifically what widget it is. I think that can be done in a minimalist, low level way that doesn't conflict with various data binding approaches. Suppose that you could already rely on TextField implements HasValue<String>, CheckBox implements HasValue<Boolean>. How would that interfere with the work you're doing now? Might it simplify it any?
rjrjr On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Ian Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Ray Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm with Isaac. I think the case for teaching our Widgets to implement > > HasData<T> is really clear cut (especially if they also accept DataChange > > listeners). The DataManager is a bit harder to justify, and anyway > trivial > > for folks to implement on their own. > > I'm not with Isaac. My first experience working with data binding was > as a co-op student working on the UI team on the Eclipse project at > OTI. That was a very educational co-op term! Eclipse, at least in > version 2--I've lost track since then, has a very clear separation > between SWT, the widget kit, and JFace, the "data binding" library > that sits on top of SWT. > > In my mind, a Widget has a specific job to do--get displayed in an > application and, when appropriate, react to user manipulation. > Teaching basic widgets to know about "data" is a bad idea, IMO, > because it makes basic widgets too complicated. It also puts a lot of > pressure on programmers to use the data binding model that's baked > into the widgets, even if that model doesn't really suit a given > application. In fact, I think Isaac's comments may be an example of > this--he's built himself a model for doing data binding and, at first > blush, it looks like it doesn't match with Arthur's. It also seems > like neither Arthur's nor Isaac's model fits with the model that I > built and am frantically documenting in preparation for releasing > here. If any of our models is chosen as The GWT Way and baked into > the basic widgets, the others are probably out of luck. Instead, I > think a data binding library should be built on top of a widget > library for two main reasons: you can switch data binding libraries > more easily and, perhaps more importantly, you don't have to use any > data binding library at all. > > Ian > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
