AW: [jwt-dev] PaletteFactory feature proposition

["Christian Saad" <christian.saad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

I also like the idea of referring to implementations through IDs rather than
directly pointing to the class itself. Maybe we could put them all in a new
extension point, e.g. something like "org.eclipse.jwt.resources". However,
if we decide to do it this way, there should probably be some sort of
dependency between the view and its additional resources which ensures that
the resources are loaded once the view is activated (or maybe this works
automatically?).

Regards,
Chris

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Im Auftrag von Marc Dutoo
> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Dezember 2008 17:44
> An: Java Workflow Toolbox
> Betreff: Re: [jwt-dev] PaletteFactory feature proposition
> 
> Hi
> 
> Please rather discuss on
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=257224
> 
> If I got the point, there are two solutions :
>    * either specify the paletteFactory in the view file ; however I
> personally don't like the idea of referring to implementations and
> classes in the view file
>    * or specify the paletteFactory in an extension point (which would
> manage a register of available paletteFactories), and refer to it in
> the
> view file, kinda like what Koen proposed in order to be able to share
> images (image gallery through extension point)
> 
> Regards,
> Marc
> 
> Rodrigue Le Gall a écrit :
> > Yes.
> >
> > But I don't think view must know that. IMO, put this information in
> > the extension point seems to be the best choice. So i think it sould
> > not be a part of the view configuration (or model).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jwt-dev mailing list
> > jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev
> >
> 
> Christian Saad a écrit :
> > Hi Rodrigue,
> >
> > ok, if I understood you correctly, this would then be another point
> that
> > should be added to the new views implementation since the palette
> > would be
> > bound to one (or more) views?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jwt-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Im Auftrag von Rodrigue Le Gall
> >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. Dezember 2008 17:37
> >> An: Java Workflow Toolbox
> >> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [jwt-dev] Bonita Designer use cases
> >> andrequirements
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I have created a feature request in bugzilla and I've attached the
> >> implementation we need.
> >>
> >> In fact, in order to be the more flexible as we can, we propose to
> add
> >> the feature to define a palette factory for each view. If you don't
> >> want to specify the palette factory, so the standard palette will be
> >> used.
> >> see https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=257224
> >>
> >> Feature detail:
> >> To be more flexible, we need to add our own palette to our views in
> >> JWT.
> >> Actually, there is a single dynamic palette based on the model.
> >> So we propose to add the capacity to specify a palette factory for a
> >> view in order to be able to get a specific palette with a specific
> >> context.
> >>
> >> To do that we propose to add the palette factory in the view
> extension
> >> point and to modify the palette construction to take in count this
> >> capacity.
> >>
> >>
> >> thoughts?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rodrigue
> >>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jwt-dev mailing list
> jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev