On 12/15/2010 09:04 PM, Rob Ross wrote:
Well, that *was* the stated goal : A simple app framework designed for small to
medium sized desktop apps that is easy to learn and quickly develop on. If
you're going to write an IDE yourself, SAF is probably not the framework for
you. If you're going to write Notepad or Paint, it's the perfect framework.
Well, and what's the interest of writing Notepad or Paint, or a similar
complexity app? :-) Sometimes people needs quick and dirty stuff, and in
this case I'm the first to say that probably Java isn't always the best
solution. In other cases, a requirement that starts simple quickly gets
more complex if things go well. That's why I always strive for a
framework that doesn't pose me any limit.
In any case, as I said, unfortunately you need to have some experience
in the NetBeans Platform in order to cut it down to a very small
infrastructure; and you need to do some boring configuration thing
(things are a bit easier if you work with Maven). Thus I understand that
if one is evaluating a simple desktop framework, he probably finds
(B)SAF more appealing. But indeed a cut down NetBeans platform is
probably as light as (B)SAF, but provides tools that will scale up a
lot. The missing parts (which are not code, but documentation,
distribution, etc...) would have costed to Sun much less than developing
SAF did. That's why I think SAF was an unfortunate strategy.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
[email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java
Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
