geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Allen Fogleson" <afogle...@blackboard.com>
Subject RE: new console-swing team
Date Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:37:02 GMT
Agreed there too, although from what I hear (I havent done swing in
about a year and a half) JFCUnit helps out quite a bit on the swing unit
testing. 

Al

-----Original Message-----
From: Sonnek, Ryan [mailto:Ryan.Sonnek@bpc.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 3:34 PM
To: 'geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
Subject: RE: new console-swing team


Also, I think it's MUCH easier to unit test these base components than
testing the actual UI components like tag's or swing.

Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Fogleson [mailto:afogleson@blackboard.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 2:31 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: new console-swing team


Exactly, :) we are in perfect agreement. 

Once the common API is out of the way then it is really just a matter of
slapping a view/controller on top of it. I would think at that point it
would make sense to determine the swing/swt decision, although some gui
work can be progressing in parallel I imagine. 

Al

-----Original Message-----
From: Sonnek, Ryan [mailto:Ryan.Sonnek@bpc.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 3:28 PM
To: 'geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
Subject: RE: new console-swing team


I know what you mean Allen.
Although JMX is the core, there is also core "Geronimo" functionality
that all clients should implement (ex: exception handling and logging).
So, even though JMX is being used, we should still have a common API to
perform the "Geronimo" work associated with JSR77 (which I agree would
be a great starting point).

That being said, I would also like to state that the MVC architechture
works great for ANY application (thick or thin client), so having one
common architecture to perform these operations regardless of
presentation seems quite rational.  Whether or not it's actually
feasible is another question though.  =)

Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Fogleson [mailto:afogleson@blackboard.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 2:18 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: new console-swing team


Alex;

Well, in my mind at least (but who knows with my mind sometimes), that
would be encapsulated in the view :)

Al

-----Original Message-----
From: n. alex rupp [mailto:rupp0035@umn.edu] 
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 3:12 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: new console-swing team


Al, we actually do share the same model--JMX : )

It's the custom addons to JMX to prettify the output that 
might not transfer too well between apps ; )
--
N.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Allen Fogleson" <afogleson@blackboard.com>
To: <geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>; <mariano.kamp@acm.org>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: new console-swing team


I have done a fair amount of swing development - although I suspect as
most here I have done much more work on thin clients, and the
model/controller side of things. 

I really wouldn't be a big fan of an swt stand-alone app (although I
admit to its better look and feel) As someone else pointed out the
supported OS' are limited for swt. 

I would disagree that the model cannot be shared with the apps. A
properly designed model should easily be shareable. Isn't that the idea
behind separation of concerns :)

Al

>>Just one more thing regarding the discussion on sharing model code
between 
>>clients. I am bit sceptic about sharing code between the web-console
and a 
>>standalone-client, but I can imagine that it would be much easier to
do so 
>>with a swing and an eclipse app.

Mime
View raw message