a) no system is perfect for all
b) if you don't like it, suggest a change
my 2 cents
Cutter
jon hall wrote:
> Thursday, October 16, 2003, 10:37:33 AM, you wrote:
> >> MTeF> I strongly disagree with this. Both about the documentation
> and the
> MF> power
> >> MTeF> :-)
> >>
> >> Oh really... :)
>
> MF> Just tell me about something that you would like to implement as DW's
> MF> extension and you can't due to the API's limitations
>
> For one example, setting focus. Focus needs to be able to be set from
> anywhere, to anywhere. This is especially problematic with dynamic
> content in a floater as doc.write has, i assume unintended,
> consequences in regards to focus.
> Floaters themselves need all of the DOM events...onmouseover is a big
> one. Onmouseover...floaters need to be able to be focused.
> Onrightclick is another big missing one.
>
> >> How exactly does an extremely small subset of DOM 1 that is
> >> implemented unevenly across the different objects qualify as
> >> powerful? To say nothing of DOM 2 or 3.
>
> MF> See above, what part of DOM 2 or 3 do you need inside the API, and why?
>
> doc.write being the only way to dynamically alter content is so 5
> years ago, slow, and has obvious code maintenance problems. The world has
> DOM 2 now. Fourth generation browsers are dead, and doc.write is lame.
>
> >> How does the fact that all the menus are very nicely defined in XML
> >> files, but no one has thought to distribute DTD's of any kind qualify
> >> as well documented?
>
> MF> Do you really feel like it's so hard to read without a DTD?
> MF> Do you think HS's stuff is better documented?
>
> A simple DTD says so much about an XML document...it's vastly
> superior to the few paragraphs and examples given.
> Homesite's built in objects and functions are documented clearly and named
> logically. It also benefits from the fact that tons of preexisting
> documentation exists for the WSH languages and COM objects.
>
> >> How can DW's data connectivity compare in any regard to ADO for power?
>
> MF> I never felt the need to connect to a datasource from a DW's
> extension, but,
> MF> apart from C++, you can leverage Flash Remoting too
>
> I can't remember who developed it, but I'm sure you have seen that
> cool new DW data wizard that was recently released. It's
> great...except DW's data limitations wont allow an editable
> grid, just viewing. Even WebMatrix allows data editing, and it's
> free.
>
> >> DW allows only JS or C, HS allows any language built on WSH, meaning
> >> VBS, JS, Kix, etc., and any language a COM object can be written in.
>
> MF> There is a huge difference here, DW API are cross-platform.
>
> I only use DW on one platform...I don't see why I have to be
> limited. Would it be hard to allow Windows people to use WSH and allow
> Mac people to use AppleScript?
>
> >> Why the heck is DWFile so slow?
>
> MF> How many files you need to process with it? I used it for up to 2-3.000
> MF> files testing my site-wide extensions, it does the job, I never felt the
> MF> need for anything faster (remember it's cross platform too)
>
> Directory listings read from the HD directly every time instead of
> using the Windows API's ability to cache directory listings.
>
> >> I also can't speak to the C API, knowing very little C, but how many web
> >> developers know C?
>
> MF> I don't, but I was still able to do a few not too trivial things
> using DW's
> MF> API
>
> >> The only thing going for DW is the UI extensibility, which is awesome,
>
> MF> And leaves HS in the dust here... :-)
> MF> Try this for example:
> MF> http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=A1EDDF56F77EE7CA
>
> A custom floater in Flash? Nice looking...still has all of Flash's UI
> problems like lack of right-click, and scroll button though. I
> want to extend my IDE because I want more usability out of my IDE, not
> even more usability problems.
>
> DW does trump HS with the ability to alter the UI, but just putting a
> sticker on the side of the box doesn't make it so. It's has to fully
> deliver that capability.
>
> >> I can't help but feel that the whole DW
> >> extensibility thing has not enough resources, meaning people working
> >> on it, or it has too many, and not enough organization. Maybe it's
> >> because it has to run on the Mac as well that is holding it back.
>
> MF> I am not pretending DW's API is perfect, but I stand by my words
> saying that
> MF> I strongly disagree with your statement about HS's extensibility
> being more
> MF> powerful or better documented
>
> >> I think Mozilla is the model of what DW extensibility model want's
> to be.
> >> XUL/XBL/XPCOM kicks butt...or even HTML/DOM2/XML Events. Whatever the
> >> solution is, DW needs it. It's really lagging.
>
> MF> Well, actually DW predates Mozilla, the XML menus were based on the very
> MF> early draft of XUL (back in 1999)
>
> Four years...The extensibility team been on hiatus since then?
>
> I know this stuff isn't trivial to implement, but it's what I expect
> when I look over and see guys using WebMatrix and VS.Net. I never
> claimed to be a reasonable guy either :)
>
> --
> jon
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
