Thanks for the feedback! Marcel Offermans wrote: > Me: There's two types of UI's: > 1) UI's for custom made applications, tailored to the exact needs of a > customer; > 2) UI's for products, designed to be flexible and configurable for the > target audience. > > For the first type, I agree with your thinking that scripting is good > for glueing together standard components. > > For the second type, my experiences are that this creates a > maintenance nightmare and hard to adjust UI's. Here you often have to > accommodate requirements like: > - having different user roles that see different parts of windows; > - having configurable entities, where application administrators can > add fields and relationships and change many settings that affect the > UI; > - ... > > In a past life, I've done a few products of the second type, and there > we always came back to programmatically defining the whole UI in a non- > scripting language because that was easier to maintain and test. On > the other hand, such an environment does take more time to get started > (learning curve wise as well as building a library and/or "DSL" for > quickly creating such UI's).
Ok, great. But this still would make it useful to have a bunch of Composite-aware widgets and maybe even some standard app "skeletons" (sort of like Eclipse RCP) to make it easier to build UI apps? /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
