faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
|
Missing the point, really missing the point...
by Anonymous coward on Friday 26/Mar/2004, @01:31
|
Sorry, but I think that Rik's article completely misses the point, and dramatically underestimates the impact of XAML/Avalon in the desktop field.
The power of XAML is that it allows to create the general content of GUIs, without too much care for its representation (as it happens when you write XHTML). The final rendering is performed by the underlying desktop environment, that applies transformations (a-la XLS) and styles (a-la CSS) to ensure that the GUI always resembles the current human interface policies of the desktop environment (that may change over time). [NOTE: the MSDN article reported by Rik doesn't seem to stress this point]
Regarding actual application logic: it can be embedded in XAML pages, or put in external files, and it could be written using _any_ language supported by the .NET framework (C#, Visual Basic, Java, Javascript, Python...).
It basically means that XAML/Avalon applications are *very* easy to write (using your Favourite Language(TM)), can be approached by web developers (who often have strong GUI expertise), and have the potential of a *very* long life cycle: they can automatically adapt to the changes of the underlying desktop policies and programming environment, since both representation and logic are written using high level languages.
As of today, there's *nothing* in the free software world that resembles XAML/Avalon. The only common point is the XML usage - but sharing an underlying meta-format really doesn't give you much: the important part is *how* this format is used. XAML/Avalon use it as it was meant to be used (a way to store content, without representation), while the free software world uses it as a simple storage medium that also carries representation information.
If big corporations (and developers in general) choose XAML/Avalon to write their applications now, they won't be able to port them on the free software world, and will stick with Microsoft operating systems. It will, of course, force users to stick with Microsoft OSs as well. So we really need a free (and possibly compatible) XAML/Avalon alternative, as soon as possible
GNOMErs seem to have taken this issue more seriously. See, for example, this interesting article: "What next for GNOME's user interface?" - http://usefulinc.com/edd/blog/contents/2004/03/03-gnomeui/read |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Missing the point, really missing the point...
by Kosh on Friday 26/Mar/2004, @02:19
|
Actually we don't know if this will work in practice. Look at HTML it keeps going through some pretty major because what it needs to do changes so much over time that the older way things where done just don't work very well anymore. It is true that old webpages still render in modern browsers but the pages do look old and stuff done now will look just as bad a few years from now. Simple things like Forms are being redone as XForms which are far more powerful and if you want to use those features you will have to change your html. That is true of many others areas also. Your apps don't magically upgrade like you seem to be suggesting since new concepts need to be explained to the system so that it knows that they apply to your app.
Overall the best bet it is seperate the front end from the back end of the app so that it is easier to replace the gui since overall in computing history it seems that the guis need replacing a lot more often then the front ends do.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Missing the point, really missing the point...
by Anonymous coward on Friday 26/Mar/2004, @05:02
|
> Actually we don't know if this will work in practice. Look at HTML it keeps
> going through some pretty major because what it needs to do changes so much over
> time that the older way things where done just don't work very well anymore. It
> is true that old webpages still render in modern browsers but the pages do look
> old and stuff done now will look just as bad a few years from now
It happens because HTML is an inbreed between content and representation.
Things do change when using XML or XHTML: they have been created just to store *content*. The final representation is delegated to other systems (CSS or XLST).
Have a look at an XHTML page rendered without CSS support: it looks as ugly as the web pages written 10 years ago. But once you apply CSS rendering... The magik happens!
> That is true of many others areas also. Your apps don't magically upgrade like
> you seem to be suggesting since new concepts need to be explained to the
> system so that it knows that they apply to your app.
That's the whole point of XAML/Avalon: you just create the "content" of the GUI, the underlying desktop environment will know and apply the "new concepts" to the final representation. It does definitely ease integrating old apps with new (and revised) system GUIs.
> Overall the best bet it is seperate the front end from the back end of the app
> so that it is easier to replace the gui since overall in computing history it
> seems that the guis need replacing a lot more often then the front ends do.
Yes, and XAML/Avalon do allow it: it's always possible to write pure code that interfaces to your GUI, choosing whatever language you want (as long as it works under .NET).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: Missing the point, really missing the point...
by Ez on Friday 26/Mar/2004, @02:45
|
You obviously know far more about this than me, but what you've written seems to bear out my own response, further up this thread. I was a bit too unsure of my facts, when posting, to say outright that Rik's missed the point, but having read your post, I can now say, "I agree". Rik has missed the point on this one.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Missing the point, really missing the point...
by Datschge on Friday 26/Mar/2004, @07:22
|
"to ensure that the GUI always resembles the current human interface policies of the desktop environment"
This sounds more like wishful thinking to me, unless the 'human interface policies' are flexible like bubble gum themselves or the flexibility of creating GUI's (not their content) using XAML is fundamentally restricted. And many of the XAML GUI examples I saw didn't look usable but hideous. Please refer me to some documentation clearing up how the separation of GUI and content you like to emphasize so much should work.
"If big corporations (and developers in general) choose XAML/Avalon to write their applications now"
Is that already possible? I think the whole development environment and framework for it to be really applicable is by far not usable in production use as of now, and that will only change when Longhorn is officially released (which will be in several years).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Missing the point, really missing the point...
by Anonymous coward on Friday 26/Mar/2004, @09:19
|
> This sounds more like wishful thinking to me
Yes, it may be just complete vaporware and/or poorly implemented stuff... But it seems that Microsoft is really working in that field - while the free software world is completely unprepared, and often underestimates XAML/Avalon effects.
> Please refer me to some documentation clearing up how the separation of GUI and
> content you like to emphasize so much should work.
There's no single reference (at least, I haven't found it yet): the plan can be understood by looking at the whole XAML/Longhorn scenario. If there was a clear explanation of Microsoft plans, maybe we wouldn't be discussing whether Rik's article underestimated XAML/Avalon consequences :-)
Some interesting stuff, however, is here: http://longhornblogs.com/
And most of the consequences are quite easy to understand: once you have such a XML-based GUI design system in place, integrated with the whole .NET framework, developers won't have to care e.g. about widget positioning and spacing: CSS-like and/or XLS-like transformations may take care of it, depending on the current theme and/or human interface policies. It may not help in *all* the cases (it's always possible to write bad GUIs and bad applications), but it *does* give an additional value that free software can't offer (yet).
One of the actual examples of how XAML/Avalon could work is given by... XUL (that uses the Mozilla rendering engine, Gecko, to apply CSS-like styles and transformations to XML-defined GUIs).
XAML is something like XUL, but applied to native widgets and themes, with a complete system integration (via the .NET framework) and a broader support for scripting languages (while XUL only supports Javascript, XAML supports all the languages of the .NET framework). In other words: XAML/Avalon are nothing new, but it promises to be very powerful and (as of today) free software competitors simply don't exist. See the Edd Dumbill's article I've pointed out for further details: http://usefulinc.com/edd/blog/contents/2004/03/03-gnomeui/read
> > If big corporations (and developers in general) choose XAML/Avalon to write
> > their applications now"
Sorry, I was unclear. XAML is not production quality, yet - but corporations and developers may start now their planning abut thecnologies to be used in future projects (and that's the whole point of the articles being published on MSDN: they want to influence these choices).
We can't answer to these articles just by saying "I've done the same with Qt and KDevelop", because it really takes into account one of the points (the RAD issue), and completely misses the long-term maintainability and system integration points.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
