Re: [e4-dev] how to contribute to toolkit model ?

[yves.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Hi giorno,

> i would prefer to be able to use an already known way (EMF) to access
> the model at runtime instead of using a new API  (XWT).

I know you are a fan of EMF. So I'm. I think you should request SWT team
to reimplement SWT in EMF.

Best regards
Yves YANG
>
> Il giorno 01/set/09, alle ore 12:14, yves.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx ha scritto:
>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure to understand. In XWT is possible to use user defined UI
>>> element without deploy ?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, exactly. It is in my demo for e4 presentation.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm an EMF lover. I have used and will use EMF as much as I can. But
>>>> I'm not
>>>> blindly to use it anywhere. Typically, we have an eclipse modeling
>>>> project
>>>> for UI (named PMF) that relies on EMF. But EMF solution for
>>>> declarative UI
>>>> has more cons then pros from the industry point of view:
>>>>  1. Introduce another programming APIs for dynamic aspect, not
>>>> traditional
>>>> SWT/JFace APIs
>>>>  2. The Interface/Implementation/Factory pattern has a limited
>>>> benefice
>>>> for declarative UI in eclipse/e4 context
>>>>     It reduces directly the extensibility and flexibility. 1
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> i'm not bindly to use it anywhere. but i'm bindly to use when i have
>>> to manage data model and IMHO ui parts are data model.
>>>
>>> Using emf not introduce another programming API but instead use the
>>> same as the modeled workbench
>>>
>>
>> The purpose of workbench is to manage the view part in eclipse. It
>> doesn't
>> deal with the detail content of each part. As said Kevin, in most of
>> case,
>> we don't need to touch it.
>>
>> But for the content view of parts, it is different. We need to
>> handle the
>> events and manage the dynamic aspect all time by programming. So for
>> UI
>> programmer, he/she has to learn a new API, instead of SWT.
>>
>>> the use of emf formalize a standard way to access and interact with
>>> your model. this mean to simplify the things. SWT is much more
>>> difficult, no ?
>>
>