Hi, Am 30.06.2009 um 11:32 schrieb Laurent PETIT:
Yes, what I have in mind is that, in some point in time, parts of clojuredev (ouch, still not decided on a new name :) will be implemented in clojure, and so I'll have to somewhat create the same kind of dsl for swt based "forms".
Ah! I see the incentive! :)
So I was challenging your dsl to see how it could make a good basis for a cross-way to declare forms (swing based or swt based). The idea of getting rid of explicit Swing constructors seems good to me. The only part that remains somewhat very tied to swing in the spec may be the :constraints specification.
Well. The constraints spec is still there, because you have to specify it to the PanelBuilder class of Forms. At least it is a String. For miglayout for example, you still have specify other constraints, like span and wrap and such things. Maybe these can also be abstracted away.
Have you tried the MigLaout layout manager ? ( http://www.miglayout.com/ ). It enables one to specify layout constraints without strong adherance to either swing or swt or a particular swing/swt layout manager.
I know MigLayout and I know the contrib by Stephen. However Forms also provides nice factories and such. I haven't it used in depth, yet (Neither did I use MigLayout in depth). But it seems a nice library from what I saw up to now.
Was that, what you had in mind? Then a name like clj-swing-forms, would maybe justifiable. Or maybe Jazz, Blues, ... ?I'm pretty bad at finding names, so I won't give you any advice ... :-)
Same here. Name finding is horrible... :) Sincerely Meikel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
