RE: [technology-pmc] Re: Sapphire Mentors Selected

[yves.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx]

>> 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.

XWT is also model-based. It relies a dynamic XML schema and Java class
mapping, which is done via a meta-models. By default, the meta class are
created using Java Reflection. It is possible to change the mapping by
defining your meta classes or extend the standard one. The XML syntax
respects a subset of Open Specification (XAML).

>
>> 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.

Exactly. I think Sapphire can be one of the runtime target of PMF.

Best regards
Yves YANG
>
> - 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
>