Fluent DSL for Rich-UI


News: Fluent DSL for Rich-UI

  1. Fluent DSL for Rich-UI (6 messages)

    UI Layouts are generally defined using declarative forms such as HTML or XML which in the end is just NOT a valid representation of the view because its static. A richer experience by definition is a changing view, this means the code behind the template will become the center of focus. However, building UI in programming languages can be verbose and cumbersome and needs to be addressed. Leveraging OO features can in-fact provide a great experience for laying out complex UI for Rich Internet Apps (RIA) if approached correctly. For more details ... Fluent DSL for Rich-UI

    Threaded Messages (6)

  2. Re: Fluent DSL for Rich-UI[ Go to top ]

    First of all, the DSL looks very nice. It is a good example of a DSL implementation. BUT. Personally I would probably never use this in my application architecture. I have 1 simple reason for this. The Interface of a application should never be hardcoded into a application program. This makes you very inflexible when you want to switch or redesign your interface. This is how we coded 10 years ago, however now we seperate the design completely from the application logic which is good coding practice. I can give you more reasons why I would not use it, but this is on of the more important ones. Kind regards, Marc
  3. Re: Fluent DSL for Rich-UI[ Go to top ]

    Marc.. The premise is more rich more code (as in more money more problems!).. Hard-coded is a loaded word - in your sense of its usage > You would be merely hard-coding things in a programmer unfriendly environment such as CDATA script sections inside an XML file.
  4. I'm not convinced[ Go to top ]

    I agree that static html templating using something like velocity is not the most productive way to get a rich ui, but instead of looking at the current state of server side html generations, look at the where RIA is starting to go. JavaFX script, Flex's MXML, and Microsoft's XAML are all very rich and they are all declarative. JavaFX also integrates with Java including type safety. If you've decided to use GWT, I can see how this might be a nice alternative, but I would not go so far as to say that this type of syntax is superior to all declarative forms or that declarative forms are not valid representations. Just because html is primarily static, does not mean declarative programming is static. The primary aspects of declarative programming are that they attempt to eliminate side effects, and that they describe what should be accomplished instead of how it should be accomplished. Both of which are really good aspects of a UI language.
  5. Re: I'm not convinced[ Go to top ]

    Russell, see comment for Marc.. UI code is separated out from the rest. Different packages, different deployment. Transitions are now easier and sharing of Java beans is now possible.
  6. Re: Fluent DSL for Rich-UI[ Go to top ]

    Although this DSL would make it easier for a developer to modify the layout, this would negatively affect the designers working on the application. How are they supposed to modify the look and feel, without using this DSL?
  7. Re: Fluent DSL for Rich-UI[ Go to top ]

    Designers rework their mock-ups as mentioned in 1st para. The premise is that Rich-UIs by their dynamic nature don't lend themselves to being shared between designers and programmers.