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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 3:34 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 2:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 3:28 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 2:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 3:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
