[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [technology-pmc] Re: Sapphire Mentors Selected
|
> If we look at the current implementation of XWT,
> it is true it handles the low level UI definition. But it is just a start
> point. XWT is a high extensible architecture. In fact, it defines an
> reusable UI infrastructure. We can easily add a new high level abstraction
> on top of XWT such as property editor, Wizard page, Preference Page etc.
> We have already a first experience of using XWT to define the "Properties
> View" of e4 workbench by hand coding. We are working on using PMF to
> generate them.
Good to know. It sounds like it would be a good idea to explore Sapphire and
XWT integration sooner than I anticipated. To be clear, I don't see Sapphire
folding into XWT for two fundamental reasons:
1. Sapphire is intended to be independent of a particular UI technology.
2. All of my current users are going to be on Eclipse 3.x for foreseeable
future.
Sapphire's UI definition is a model. It isn't bound to any one particular
syntax. There has been some discussion on the forum about using Xtext to
build a more readable language, for instance. There is no reason that there
couldn't be a syntax that's directly embeddable in an XWT definition if XWT
is as flexible as you say.
> I said Sapphire is close to XWT because it is a runtime solution. PMF is
> not. PMF is a MODELING Framework or precisely a toolkit to generate the
> runtime. Its-self is not runtime. In one word, PMF is a UI software
> engineering based on MDA. One application designed in PMF can be run in
> different UI technology natively. It is not via Renderer to switch the
> execution environment. For example, one application designed in PMF can be
> generated to e4 using eclipse runtime, it should be generated in AJax on
> Web.
Ok. I understand now.
PMF: Data Model + UI Model -> Code Generator -> Run
Sapphire: Data Model + UI Model -> Run -> Sapphire Runtime + Renderer
It sounds like the goals of Sapphire and PMF are similar, but the approaches
are quite different.
- Konstantin
-----Original Message-----
From: technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
yves.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:57 PM
To: Technology PMC
Subject: RE: [technology-pmc] Re: Sapphire Mentors Selected
Hi Konstantin,
I appreciate this open discussion.
>
> I have to disagree with your assessment that e4/XWT and Sapphire are
> similar. The only similarity that they share is that they both use a
> declarative language to specify the UI, but what's actually specified is
> very different. There is a paragraph on this in the Sapphire project
> proposal, but here is another stab at an explanation... XWT specifies
> widgets and their detailed configurations, including layouts, etc. It is
> basically a declarative version of SWT. Nothing wrong with that. In fact
> it's a necessary evolution of SWT, but that's not what Sapphire is about.
> In
> Sapphire, the UI definition is composed of an arrangement of property
> editors. The developer does not specify which widgets to create nor how to
> arrange them in detail (no layouts). That function is left to the
> renderer.
>From this point of design position, it does look like as PMF to deal with
high level abstraction. If we look at the current implementation of XWT,
it is true it handles the low level UI definition. But it is just a start
point. XWT is a high extensible architecture. In fact, it defines an
reusable UI infrastructure. We can easily add a new high level abstraction
on top of XWT such as property editor, Wizard page, Preference Page etc.
We have already a first experience of using XWT to define the "Properties
View" of e4 workbench by hand coding. We are working on using PMF to
generate them.
I said Sapphire is close to XWT because it is a runtime solution. PMF is
not. PMF is a MODELING Framework or precisely a toolkit to generate the
runtime. Its-self is not runtime. In one word, PMF is a UI software
engineering based on MDA. One application designed in PMF can be run in
different UI technology natively. It is not via Renderer to switch the
execution environment. For example, one application designed in PMF can be
generated to e4 using eclipse runtime, it should be generated in AJax on
Web.
I hope I make my-self clear.
Best regards
Yves YANG
>
> In fact, it is entirely possible to have an e4/XWT definition produced by
> a
> Sapphire renderer and I fully expect that to happen at some point as
> Eclipse
> 4.x gains greater mindshare. Other integration vectors are possible too.
> For
> instance, right now, one way that Sapphire integrates with SWT is via
> SapphireControl, which is an SWT composite that takes a data model and a
> UI
> definition and renders everything. I can easily see an equivalent thing to
> plug Sapphire into an XWT definition of the e4 workbench. Note that it is
> not a goal of Sapphire to be a generic UI framework. I don't see ever
> being
> able to use it to describe the entire workbench. That is both unnecessary
> (there are better tools for that - like XWT) and would hurt Sapphire ease
> of
> use that is fundamental for its value proposition. Sapphire's strength is
> forms. You have less flexibility than XWT/SWT/whatever, but you develop
> far
> more rapidly with arguably better results. The developers would choose
> control or quicker results as the needs of the problem dictate.
>
> Regarding PMF, I have to admit that I am confused now. From the project
> description and screen casts they looked similar at the fundamental level.
> In both, the data model is a key input and you compose UI out properties
> rather than widgets. Something else decides what widgets to create. The
> major differences that I see is the reliance on generated code and the use
> of EMF for the data model. I'd live to learn more about PMF, especially
> the
> way in which it is a "more generic solution" than Sapphire. It's hard to
> tell right now whether collaboration is possible, but you can never tell.
> Thanks for the offer.
>
> - Konstantin
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of yves (yingmin)
> yang
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:01 PM
> To: 'Technology PMC'
> Subject: RE: [technology-pmc] Re: Sapphire Mentors Selected
>
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> Through the link you provided, it seems t me that Sapphire is much close
> to
> XWT than PMF.
>
> Comparing to XWT, Sapphire uses Java annotation to declare the data
> binding
> and XML for UI definition. XWT has a clear separation between the business
> model and UI aspects including the data binding, it keeps the business
> model
> unchanged and it can be used by multiples UI presentation.
>
> Comparing to PMF, Sapphire is a developer centric solution, and it targets
> only Java programming language. PMF is more generic solution, it is
> independent from programming language, data model and UI technology.
>
> Both XWT and PMF are designed for building the tools easily.
>
> I'd like more description in your proposal regarding XWT and PMF.
>
> By the way, you are welcome to join XWT and PMF to make a common solution.
>
> Best regards
> Yves YANG
> -----Original Message-----
> From: technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Konstantin
> Komissarchik
> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 4:48 AM
> To: 'Technology PMC'
> Subject: RE: [technology-pmc] Re: Sapphire Mentors Selected
>
> Now unlike XWT, PMF is tackling the same problem as Sapphire, but as you
> will see once you've read the link that I sent earlier, the approaches are
> quite different.
>
> We can discuss Sapphire/PMF comparison further if you wish, but I would
> much
> rather do that on the forum as I stated in the previous e-mail. The Tech
> PMC
> can read the forum just as well as this mailing list, but e-mails sent to
> this list aren't as easily accessible to everyone else interested in this
> technology.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Konstantin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> yves.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 7:14 PM
> To: Technology PMC
> Subject: Re: [technology-pmc] Re: Sapphire Mentors Selected
>
> And there is another project PMF to deal with UI in a modeling and total
> abstraction way. It targets to support all kinds of data sources and UI
> technologies.
>
> Best regards
> Yves YANG
>> Hi PMC,
>>
>> I just wonder the relation with XWT, which is part of e4 and it
>> implements
>> already most of features proposed. I think the overlap is too important.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Yves YANG
>>> Hello Konstantin,
>>>
>>> The update has been done. Thanks!
>>>
>>> http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/sapphire/
>>>
>>> Anne Jacko
>>> emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Anne,
>>>>
>>>> Tom Schindl and Neil Hauge have agreed to mentor Sapphire project
>>>> per EDP requirements.
>>>>
>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=318523
>>>>
>>>> I am attaching an updated project proposal that lists them as
>>>> mentors. This update also includes a section with links to external
>>>> resources helpful in learning more about Sapphire. Please post this
>>>> version when you get a chance.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> - Konstantin
>>>> <proposal.html>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> technology-pmc mailing list
>>> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> technology-pmc mailing list
>> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
>
> _______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2306 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> 06:09:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
>
> _______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
>
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
