|
I know what ya mean, but we have to tread lightl on those concepts if we use them since they are a licensed, selling product
Mark
Mark Conger
Sonork:100.28396
|
|
|
|
|
There are enough ways that we could/would/should make different that we shouldn't have a problem.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote:
OK, what's your idea of what an application framework is/does?
I'm still not sure I understand exactly what an app framework is. Is it like Document/View in MFC or is it deeper, like MFC itself, or deeper yet? Is it like .NET, or maybe DirectX?
Can it be built on top of another app framework?
If it is what I think it is, here are some ideas:
1) XML defined UI or a basic method of user customization through XML or scripting.
2) encapsulation of multi-threading that makes it 100x easier to use.
3) easier coupling/decoupling of components (a better COM interface)
4) built-in application logging
5) built-in easy app preferences saved to XML
6) ODBC/ADO built-in
7) easy window creation (a window data type)
8) HTML parsing/rendering/functionality on windows
I could go on, but I really don't know if my definition of app framework is correct.
Jason Henderson My articles
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad I wasn't completely out of my mind then.
A cool feature to me would be user customization through scripting or XML. I'd like to be able to define a UI through XML too. Imagine changing the UI without re-compiling! I think netscape was doing something like this.
Jason Henderson My articles
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Off the subject, but I don't know where to ask it:
Should we vote down the option we don't like, or just vote up the one we like? Maybe the latter is better, as the former gets a bit confusing.
I've wondered about this a number of times - where do we ask questions like the above question? Can a forum be set up for asking CP2 questions?
[BTW, I'll gladly delete this if you want.]
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
jdunlap wrote:
Should we vote down the option we don't like, or just vote up the one we like?
I've used both. If I don't like an idea that is getting a lot of votes, I vote it down.
Marc
Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator. Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files"
|
|
|
|
|
This is Marc's message board so you don't have to delete it unless he wants you to. I just want to keep the main CPP message area clean.
I always vote down and up since if you don't like something and don't vote then everything would be 5's, but if you vote for both (down and up) then things even out more.
jdunlap wrote:
where do we ask questions like the above question?
Ask it in my personal message board on my who's who page here on CP.
Jason Henderson My articles
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Henderson wrote:
I'd like to be able to define a UI through XML too. Imagine changing the UI without re-compiling!
You'll enjoy the next installment of the AAL then. XML defined GUI's, runtime dynamic GUI generation. he he he.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
hehe, XML control of the GUI seems to be where everyone is headed.
(SharpDevelop's XMLForms, your next installment of AAL, couple other projects on Sourceforge)
Mark
Mark Conger
Sonork:100.28396
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Henderson wrote:
Is it like Document/View in MFC or is it deeper, like MFC itself, or deeper yet? Is it like .NET, or maybe DirectX?
From what I read doing a quick google search, these are all examples of an application framework. The MFC/.NET frameworks have considerable breadth, as it embraces just about every tier of an application--presentation, data access, business, instrumentation/profiling, component management, activation, memory management, data management, etc. From my point of view, the breadth has sacrificed a lot in depth. By depth, I am referring to that vague concept that makes it easier for the programmer to tie together whatever pieces the specific application requires. In the AAL, I've taken the position that 99% of programmers either don't know how to do this integration, aren't aware that it's necessary, or don't have the time. In all cases, my approach is that the framework needs to facilitate this integration in spite of the programmer's relative skills. This becomes particularly important in projects where there are several developers of varying skill.
Jason Henderson wrote:
I could go on, but I really don't know if my definition of app framework is correct.
I think it is 100% correct. The playing field is so large at this point though, that like many engineering and science disciplines, specialization is probably required. The drawback to this is that you push the integration issues up. Instead of integrating between components, now you're integrating between disparate AF's. This may not be a problem for solutions that don't cross concerns (an AOP term), but most of the applications nowadays do. Hence (and I'm not arguing for the AAL, I'm using this as a sounding board to explain my rationale) the AAL builds on the existing AF provided by Microsoft (either .NET or MFC), and attempts to unify the two thing that they all have in common--data and command. The third and fourth parts of the AAL address the application's concerns--workflow and component integration. Hopefully what I end up with is an umbrella framework (hey, I coined a term!) that works with any underlying framework. For example, the Magic library that Carlos uses in his articles would be relegated as an additional assembly with appropriate wrappers to the AAL to ensure that data and command processes stay unified.
However, there are excellent reasons to work on an AF, perhaps better termed a "technology framework" that focuses on a specific solution for a specific technology. Personally, I think it should build on the framework that Microsoft already supplies. Better buy-in, can take advantage of new features as Microsoft develops them, and can leverage a ton of work already done, even if that's sometimes painful.
Hope you don't mind the lengthy explanation!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I read through your first AAL article last night. Its an interesting concept. I may want to play some role in this project.
Jason Henderson latest CPP news
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Henderson wrote:
I may want to play some role in this project.
Well, I guess I'd suggest reading the other 3 articles and letting me know what you have in mind.
Marc
Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator. Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files"
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote:
Well, I guess I'd suggest reading the other 3 articles and letting me know what you have in mind.
What I had in mind was joining the team and helping out in some fashion. I'm sure I could do something. I promise I wouldn't tell you what to do. I can be CPP Coordinator and a team member too.
I'm an ideas person, so if all I contribute are lightbulbs going off in your head then I'm satisfied.
Jason Henderson latest CPP news
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ways to do both:
1) MC++ can be used to wrap access to the .NET dlls for use by non-.NET languages.
2) Write it in C++, then use MC++ to wrap it for access to .NET languages.
3) Write it twice, keeping .NET and non-.NET languages completely separate.
Maybe none of them is a good idea, but I would lean toward #1.
John
"We want to be alone when we hear too many words and we feel alone when it has been a while since anyone has spoken to us." Paul David Tripp -- War of Words
|
|
|
|
|
|