geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sonnek, Ryan" <Ryan.Son...@bpc.com>
Subject RE: new console-swing team
Date Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:34:06 GMT
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