On Mon, 01 Sep 2036, you wrote:
> Jian He <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [SNIPPED]
> > I want to make a proposal to implement the UIOL(User Interface Object
> Layer).
> > This layer consists of user interface object definitions.
> > The main object is Application. Application is a collection of screens. The
> > screens are accessed from the Screens Menu, as defined in the application.
> Each
> > combination of screens that is appropriate to a specific class of users can
> be
> > provided as an application.
> > Screen is a logical collection of views. It is not
> > a visual construct in itself, rather, it is a collection of views that the
> Menu
> > Bar and View bar an display. The active screen is selected from the Screens
> > menu.
> > View is a collection of viewlets which appear on the screen at the same
> > time. A view can be thought of as a single windows's worth of related data
> > forms. The user can select the current view from the View bar. A view is
> > associated with a single Business Object.
> > Viewlet is a form, composed of
> > controls, that occupies a portion of the Application. A viewlet can be
> > configured to allow data entry, provide a Web browser. It provides viewing,
> > entry, modification, an navigation copabilities for data in one Business
> > Component. ...
> > The definition file are XML format, I named it UIOML(User
> > Interface Object Markup Language) User can edit XML files to define objects,
> or
> > use Configuration Tools to develop objects, these Configuration Tools
> contains
> > Viewlet Designer, Menu Designer, Screen Designer, Application Designer...
> In
> > other layer, we also need to implement the UIPL Tools, Business Object
> > Configuration Tools, Data Configuration Tools...
>
> Another 3 cents...
>
> Part of this sounds like Jetspeed.
I could not agree it. Jetspeed almost has no business modules.
> All together this sounds like a tool that
> could be 'implemented with Turbine'.
Not only 'implemented with Turbine', i'm thinking it would be 'integrated with
Turbine'.
> I don't see where the core
> abstractions/code currently in Turbine need to be altered. Turbine currently
> has all the features to create applications which behave in the manner you
> describe. Although I don't see where the core of Turbine needs to be
> re-designed, any features/fixes that you would encounter when developing this
> tool, would be fair game to add into Turbine itself. This action is an
> attribute of Open Source projects.
>
I agree it. The core abstractions/code currently in Turbine has nothing need to
be altered, but turbine currently only a defrastracture. I only want some sort
of a high level application builder tools, these tools and it's core code are
implemented with Turbine's core abstractions/code.
> A tool like this may be nice for a portion of the development community into
> non-programming developement ( RAD? ). This may be a development tool, based
> on turbine, to develop a set/type of turbine applications ( menu bar, view
> bar, etc ). Maybe a nice addition to the TDK if you choose to implement it.
>
What is TDK? and where can i find it?
Excuse me for my bad english skill. :-)
Jian He
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
