DigiGod Q Frasch� wrote:
>
> Ryan Heise wrote:
>
> > If you were suggesting the idea in response to my observation that there
> > needs to be some view <-> view interactions, are you trying to eliminate
> > these interactions?
>
> no, no this isnt what I meant at all. I was reffereing to the windows on
> the desktop.
>
> the Model is a collection of rectangles each with a z-order the
> "screens" rectangle being a constant last. each window on the desktop is
> represented as a rectangle.
Ah, you are describing standard MVC. The model is reusable and you can
provide different view implementations over the top. I thought you must
have been referring to something else.
So, to answer your original point "we could have a very abstract model",
yes - that is the very idea of MVC.
> the controller is implementation specefic in this case, AWT (which Im
> betting would be 99.99% all cases, if not more) it mediates between the
> view (the desktop) and the "genderless" model (the rectangles),
> translateing the Windows.
Yes, the controller is more closely related to its view than it is to
its model. This is why the Swing designers decided to include the
controllers in the view objects themselves.
The only time you could share a controller is if two widget sets have
exactly the same set of functions. Even then, you're introducing a
dependency you don't need to.
> the desktop draws itself according to the commands of the controller
> which is a translator for the model.
More precisely, the controller understands commands in the language of
the view, and translates them into the language of the model.
--
Ryan Heise
http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~rheise/
_______________________________________________
UI maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/ui
