[REBOL] Re: rebol-framework: information
From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 29-Dec-2002 17:50
>Hi, maybe datatype isn't the right word. What you actualy specify by
>providing a "datatype" for an attribute is its default behaviour. So for
>example: date! Will add a function to the label of the data field that,
>if clicked, will bring up a date-requester, further the entered date
>will be transformed to Rebol format before being saved in the database.
>So, datatypes are more to specify base-functionality.
yes, that is what I had in mind ...
>>hmm, what does it mean? Does it mean you used RFM to define app data
>>structures? I just hope you don't use RFM itself to enter the
>>data? I am not sure it is good aproach, but I will have to see, if "sexy app"
>>offers enough comfort for end user to work with.
>Yes, with RFM you don't have the typical "application to track bugs"
>approach. Instead you say: "I add bug-report BOT to RFM" and than you
>have this functionality within the RFM application (GUI). With this
>approach I want to include/integrate some of the "naked objects" idea.
... which I personally find pretty messy aproach to UI .... myriads of
separate windows - confusion. The more I work with users a database
apps, the more I think MDI aproach is flawed, if does not serve special
purpose. User enters data to one certain form at a time. Concepts like
drag & drop in database apps are imo utopia and distract user from fast
work - keyboard rules :-)
>>So far I prefer strong tool to define data dictionaries of BOs, share
>>across internet etc. and let the UI part be completly separated task
>I don't think this makes sense. To create a good GUI is like a "black
>art" and it needs a good feeling for useability from the programmer. For
>example, I like programming but I don't like to spend to much time with
noone does :-)
> I know it's very important but other can do it better. IMO
>there shouldn't be to many different GUI/useablility approaches
>used/mixed in an application. That's why I would like RFM to build an
>appropriate GUI from the BOT definition.
and what if others have complete different idea of how to represent data
and their relations in UI? If RFM can't provide such functionality
(separation), it kills its usability. What if someone will want to use
it via web based forms e.g.?
Anyway, I will have to wait and see, that's the best thing I can do
right now ...
>>Do you think that RFM could be used to rewrite IOS reblets into?
>>Would there be already any benefit? I miss ability of cross reblet
>apis in IOS.
>That's what I'm missing too and that's why I started to work on RFM. My
>goal is to move the data from the current IOS reblets into RFM and use
>RFM as the single application that supports integration/assocication
>between every piece of data.
yes, but RFM already offers also GUI. So what will happen with IOS
desktop and its reblets?