[MonoDevelop] Gtk# GUI Designer?

[Richard Hendershot]

On Sun, 2004-07-11 at 15:46 +0200, Martin Probst wrote:
> Am So, den 11.07.2004 schrieb Richard Hendershot um 14:53:
> > On Sun, 2004-07-11 at 14:33 +0200, Martin Probst wrote: 
> > > Am So, den 11.07.2004 schrieb Payton Byrd um 14:21:
> > > > I think that using namespaces fixes the problems described.  You have a
> > > > basic namespace for "standard" widgets such as buttons and labels, and
> > > > then each targeted widget would reside in a targeted namespace.
> > > 
> > > Yes that would fix it. But without being to negative I think this would
> > > result in a very limited set of widgets (see xhtml+css). This would
> > > massively limit the possibilities of the developer.
> > if each namespace represented a meta-tag that mapped to
> > implementation-specific complexity, perhaps the namespaces could be
> > grouped to represent "shelles" of dependancy.  eg.  LCD is the basic
> > piece and each shell builds on that.  Toolkits can be members of each
> > namespace.  So, if my toolkit chose getLabel or toText or whatever,
> > being a member of the TO-TEXT attribute of whatever meta-tag holds
> > label info...  well, then it would be available in a concrete form at
> > runtime.
> 
> Yes, but that wont help you with the problems complex widgets will give
> you. What if we have two toolkits and the mentioned listviews, and in
> one toolkit the concept is like
> > ListView mlv = new ListView();
> > mlv.add("This is a line");
> but in the other one you would have to implement full MVC pattern for
> it, eg.
> > ListContentModel mlc = new ListContentModel();
> > ListView mlv = new ListView(mlc);
> > ListController lc = new ListController(mlv);
> and the add elements to the content model. This is only an example, but
> how would you map this together? Your mapper would have to be really
> smart to sort such things out.

the MVC controller would be a shell above the listview controller which
would be a shell above the (possibly native) text control that actually
recieves the message.  setText in this case I think.

MVC would provide a good abstraction layer for these shells, I think.

Hey, I'm not saying the necessary resultant XML files would be any
simple, quick, nor easy.  But thinking in the abstract... well, there's
enough indication that it would be a good thing ;-)
> 
> > > > In the case of Microsoft, they probably won't
> > > > support GTK widgets directly, but that doesn't mean you cannot create a
> > > > user control to implement a GTK widget and then map that widget's
> > > > namespace node to your user control when the XML is parsed to the native
> > > > language.
> > > 
> > > Would you parse the XML and translate it before shipment or on the
> > > client? In the first case this could be possible, but in the latter it
> > > would result in the complexity problems I described below.
> 
> Could you answer me on that? I'm not really sure if we're talking about
> the same thing ;-)
this would be the same deploy/reserve question you would have to answer
prior to going live anyway.   If it needs deployed, then you'd package
the necessary meta-meta descriptors.  eg. index to local or remote
descriptors.

if the description of the gui was "client-apparant" -INO needed client
customization- then certainly pieces of the XML could be parsed out
according to a map and pushed out to the client as it loaded the URI.

Is this what you were talking about ?   ;-)

> 
> mfg
> Martin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Monodevelop-list mailing list
> Monodevelop-list@lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/monodevelop-list