Re: WOBuilder Replacement
Re: WOBuilder Replacement
- Subject: Re: WOBuilder Replacement
- From: Michael Warner <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:11:20 -0700
... and if someone has not already mentioned it, it is important to
understand web standards and accessibility guidelines and to do those
extra things that make your site accessible to those with
disabilities and others who would not otherwise be able to access
your site. So at least someone on your team should have a
sophisticated understanding of html, css, and how to leverage the two
so that your clients will be assured that the information on your
site will reach the widest possible audience. And... it’s the right
thing to do.
Mike W.
On Jul 6, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Steven Mark McCraw wrote:
I'm kicking my own ass for keeping this thread going, but I
couldn't resist. Until about a year ago, I was pretty dependent on
WO Builder, just because I'd never put together templates any other
way, so I know how a lot of the people who are complaining that
there is no rendering previewish editor feel. But in truth, WO
Builder forced me into some pretty sloppy HTML and haphazard
templating, and I never would have realized that if I hadn't
switched to editing the HTML by hand. It was a little bumpy for a
while, but honestly now that I'm used to it, I wouldn't use a WO
Builder like tool even if one were available. I just feel like a
better coder now, and things make more sense in a lot of places,
and I'm really expanding in terms of my usage of HTML/CSS (Having a
visual tool kept me stuck in the world of always using tables for
layout, etc).
When you have to look at the HTML, you suddenly discover a lot of
ways to make things better. So I encourage anyone writing in who
can't bear the thought of not having WO Builder to bite the bullet
and try using the WOLips component editor for a month and see what
happens. If you still hate it, go back to using WO Builder.
There's no reason you can't use WO Builder and Eclipse together,
although the integration isn't quite as good as it was with XCode
(because when you make a change, you have to go back to Eclipse and
refresh the component there before the change will show up in your
running app).
Mark
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 6, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Louis Demers wrote:
On 6-Jul-07, at 16:33 , Andrew Lindesay wrote:
Hello Janine;
The only feature of WOBuilder that I consider important is the one
that helps you to visualize what your component will look like
when
it's rendered. WOBuilder always did a lousy job of this,
especially
It's interesting; we all have quite different ways of working
with components which probably illustrates different ways of
thinking. I really do like Mike's component editor, but to
augment it, I would also enjoy the visual modeller in WOB. I
really do not feel at all like I need a full render of the page
with data or anything -- what WOB does is perfect for my use.
It's really a logical view for making bindings. I'd love to
have the time for such an undertaking. :-/
You expressed exactly what I was trying to say. Indeed, I believe
that the graphical presentation must not aim at the aesthetics of
the page/component but rather it's structure along with a decent
inspector for the available bindings. The aesthetics of the
presentation should be done through CSS and could be handed off
to other tools like CSSEdit and the like.
In a sense, couldn't it be structured like the eomodeler in
eclipse ? A tree showing the structure and some inspector
specific to the webobject tags being edited ?
Two thoughts:
1. If you have clean, well formatted HTML the structure is usually
evident. Even with larger forms and tables, the ability to
collapse sections can still make it easy to see. Or, like Mike
posted, you can use the Outline view. Yes, Eclipse is amazing.
2. There is already an inspector (of sorts) for the WO tag being
edited. Click on the tag in the HTML and the WOD portion
automatically scrolls to the definition in the WOD. Ctrl-space in
the definition to see all bindings ( foo =). Adding an inspector
is probably not too much work, though perhaps of little benefit
once you have gotten used to auto-complete.
So it is not really too far off what you want with no real need
for a full blown WO Builder.
Chuck
--
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve
specific problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40bluecollarsoftware.com
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40mac.com
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden