Talk:DCIAndLeakyAbstractions - Revision history

JaroslavTulach at 09:49, 10 November 2009

2009-11-10T09:49:28Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:49, 10 November 2009
Line 10:		Line 10:
	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

-	Sorry, I forgot my login. Because of that I'll go under the 'unnamed' tag.	+	Sorry, I forgot my login. Because of that I'll go under the 'unnamed' tag: Text moved to [[Talk:MVC]].
-	Just to clarify, I am not against Swing or AWT, but against proclaiming any of them (as well as SWT) as the follower of the MVC pattern. You may not know that even in Smalltalk-80 (yes, where MVC was first implemented) they actually moved from the original implementation of the MVC and what we have since then in most of the frameworks is not true MVC just because these implementations do not separate the three pieces of MVC, but in most of the cases have V and C together. Besides, most of those who claim to be gurus in design patterns consider MVC as only the means of developing GUIs while MVC basically reflect the way we actually communicate with each other and process any information ourselves. That may be the reason why the original idea of MVC was never published and only 15 years later MVC was used by GOF for illustrating several simple patterns. If you check the way GOF and later authors suggested to describe design patterns and document them, you would see that they follow (without real understanding or, better to say, intuitively) the same MVC pattern. I think that even before OO was introduced as the way of doing software many of software developers used it, but without calling it as MVC. Similar approaches were used in non-OO environments before OO languages became dominant in software.	+
-	~~We can go thru this and it may be the subject for a book. I have tons of examples of MVC outside of software domain. So, if interested we can continue to work on this.~~	+
-	The slides from Greetjan you mentioned in your previous posting represent the 'traditional' vision or view on MVC and they follow Sun's blueprint which represents Sun's official approach and how they think MVC ~~is implemented in Java~~.	+

76.116.14.219 at 15:11, 7 November 2009

2009-11-07T15:11:06Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 15:11, 7 November 2009
Line 9:		Line 9:

	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	Sorry, I forgot my login. Because of that I'll go under the 'unnamed' tag.
		+	Just to clarify, I am not against Swing or AWT, but against proclaiming any of them (as well as SWT) as the follower of the MVC pattern. You may not know that even in Smalltalk-80 (yes, where MVC was first implemented) they actually moved from the original implementation of the MVC and what we have since then in most of the frameworks is not true MVC just because these implementations do not separate the three pieces of MVC, but in most of the cases have V and C together. Besides, most of those who claim to be gurus in design patterns consider MVC as only the means of developing GUIs while MVC basically reflect the way we actually communicate with each other and process any information ourselves. That may be the reason why the original idea of MVC was never published and only 15 years later MVC was used by GOF for illustrating several simple patterns. If you check the way GOF and later authors suggested to describe design patterns and document them, you would see that they follow (without real understanding or, better to say, intuitively) the same MVC pattern. I think that even before OO was introduced as the way of doing software many of software developers used it, but without calling it as MVC. Similar approaches were used in non-OO environments before OO languages became dominant in software.
		+	We can go thru this and it may be the subject for a book. I have tons of examples of MVC outside of software domain. So, if interested we can continue to work on this.
		+	The slides from Greetjan you mentioned in your previous posting represent the 'traditional' vision or view on MVC and they follow Sun's blueprint which represents Sun's official approach and how they think MVC is implemented in Java.

JaroslavTulach at 12:45, 7 November 2009

2009-11-07T12:45:47Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 12:45, 7 November 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Hello unnamed! You seem to have some issues with [[Swing]] and that is definitely where I cannot help you much. I am also not going to help you finding person to improve its design.		Hello unnamed! You seem to have some issues with [[Swing]] and that is definitely where I cannot help you much. I am also not going to help you finding person to improve its design.

-	As far as [[MVC]] goes, [Swing]] is more [[MVP]] than [[MVC]] (obviously, as it is [[GUI]] framework).	+	As far as [[MVC]] goes, [[Swing]] is more [[MVP]] than [[MVC]] (obviously, as it is [[GUI]] framework).


	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

JaroslavTulach at 12:45, 7 November 2009

2009-11-07T12:45:14Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 12:45, 7 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	I would say that DCI is much close to the actual idea of MVC compared to what was implemented by Swing/AWT. Besides, where is the promised framework for GUI development? I believe the person Sun hired some time ago for leading this project (after ten years of ignoring the need to provide such) left Sun for better opportunitues.	+	I would say that [[DCI]] is much close to the actual idea of [[MVC]] compared to what was implemented by [[Swing]]/AWT. Besides, where is the promised framework for [[GUI]] development? I believe the person [[Sun]] hired some time ago for leading this project (after ten years of ignoring the need to provide such) left [[Sun]] for better opportunitues.
-	Additionally to the previous note, the slides from Geertjan have the same coomon issue with interpreting Swing/AWT implementation as the one that follows the MVC pattern, but this implementation like the one in Smalltalk-80 is far from what was the idea of the MVC.	+	Additionally to the previous note, the slides from [[Geertjan]] have the same coomon issue with interpreting [[Swing]]/AWT implementation as the one that follows the [[MVC]] pattern, but this implementation like the one in Smalltalk-80 is far from what was the idea of the [[MVC]].

JaroslavTulach at 14:43, 4 November 2009

2009-11-04T14:43:24Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, 4 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I would say that DCI is much close to the actual idea of MVC compared to what was implemented by Swing/AWT. Besides, where is the promised framework for GUI development? I believe the person Sun hired some time ago for leading this project (after ten years of ignoring the need to provide such) left Sun for better opportunitues.		I would say that DCI is much close to the actual idea of MVC compared to what was implemented by Swing/AWT. Besides, where is the promised framework for GUI development? I believe the person Sun hired some time ago for leading this project (after ten years of ignoring the need to provide such) left Sun for better opportunitues.
	Additionally to the previous note, the slides from Geertjan have the same coomon issue with interpreting Swing/AWT implementation as the one that follows the MVC pattern, but this implementation like the one in Smalltalk-80 is far from what was the idea of the MVC.		Additionally to the previous note, the slides from Geertjan have the same coomon issue with interpreting Swing/AWT implementation as the one that follows the MVC pattern, but this implementation like the one in Smalltalk-80 is far from what was the idea of the MVC.
		+
		+
		+	Hello unnamed! You seem to have some issues with [[Swing]] and that is definitely where I cannot help you much. I am also not going to help you finding person to improve its design.
		+
		+	As far as [[MVC]] goes, [Swing]] is more [[MVP]] than [[MVC]] (obviously, as it is [[GUI]] framework).
		+
		+
		+	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

76.116.14.219 at 14:41, 1 November 2009

2009-11-01T14:41:44Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 1 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	I would say that DCI is much close to the actual idea of MVC compared to what was implemented by Swing/AWT. Besides, where is the promised framework for GUI development? I believe the person Sun hired some time ago for leading this project (after ten years of ignoring the need to provide such) left Sun for better opportunitues.
	Additionally to the previous note, the slides from Geertjan have the same coomon issue with interpreting Swing/AWT implementation as the one that follows the MVC pattern, but this implementation like the one in Smalltalk-80 is far from what was the idea of the MVC.		Additionally to the previous note, the slides from Geertjan have the same coomon issue with interpreting Swing/AWT implementation as the one that follows the MVC pattern, but this implementation like the one in Smalltalk-80 is far from what was the idea of the MVC.

76.116.14.219: New page: Additionally to the previous note, the slides from Geertjan have the same coomon issue with interpreting Swing/AWT implementation as the one that follows the MVC pattern, but this implemen...

2009-10-31T14:08:29Z

New page: Additionally to the previous note, the slides from Geertjan have the same coomon issue with interpreting Swing/AWT implementation as the one that follows the MVC pattern, but this implemen...

New page

Additionally to the previous note, the slides from Geertjan have the same coomon issue with interpreting Swing/AWT implementation as the one that follows the MVC pattern, but this implementation like the one in Smalltalk-80 is far from what was the idea of the MVC.