The definition of a component model I use below is a class which allows
properties, methods, and events in a structured way which can be
recognized, usually through some form of introspection outside of that
class. This structured way allows visual tools to host components, and
allows programme
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Edward> The definition of a component model I use below is a class which
> Edward> allows properties, methods, and events in a structured way which
> Edward> can be recognized, usually through some form of introspection
> Edward> outside of that class. Thi
Echo wrote:
> On 10/9/06, Edward Diener No Spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> The definition of a component model I use below is a class which allows
>> properties, methods, and events in a structured way which can be
>> recognized, usually through some form of
Chaz Ginger wrote:
> Edward Diener No Spam wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Edward> The definition of a component model I use below is a class
>>> which
>>> Edward> allows properties, methods, and events in a structured way
>>> which
Robert Kern wrote:
> Edward Diener No Spam wrote:
>
>> There's nothing wrong with Python's introspection. In fact Python's
>> facilities in this area and its support for metadata are stronger than
>> any of these other languages ! However there is no com
goon wrote:
>> or IBM's Eclipse for Java
>
> Or Eclipse for Python using PyDev? [0]
Those are very nice features but there is no re-usable Python bean
support like there is a Java bean. That was my initial point.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Michael wrote:
> Edward Diener No Spam wrote:
>
>> Has there ever been, or is there presently anybody, in the Python
>> developer community who sees the same need and is working toward that
>> goal of a common component model in Python, blessed and encouraged by
>>
Nick Vatamaniuc wrote:
> Edward Diener No Spam wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>
> Python does not _need_ a component model just as you don't _need_ a RAD
> IDE tool to write Python code. The reason for having a component model
> or a RAD IDE tool is to avoid writing a lot of b
Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Nick Vatamaniuc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Python does not _need_ a component model just as you don't _need_ a RAD
>> IDE tool to write Python code. The reason for having a component model
>> or a RAD IDE tool is to avoid writing a lot of boiler plate code.
>
> It's also
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> Paul Rubin schrieb:
>> "Nick Vatamaniuc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Python does not _need_ a component model just as you don't _need_ a RAD
>>> IDE tool to write Python code. The reason for having a component model
>>> or a RAD IDE tool is to avoid writing a lot of bo
Steve Holden wrote:
> Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> [...]
>>> Just the same, one can use IronPython to call components written in
>>> other languages. And, I believe, vice versa.
>>
>>
>> Sure, as I can do it in jython. But the key point is: can your ordinary
>> python-object be published as a componen
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Nick Vatamaniuc wrote:
>
>> At the same time one could claim that Python already has certain
>> policies that makes it seem as if it has a component model.
>
> every Python object surely qualifies as a component, for any non-myopic
> definition of that word, and everything
Michael Sparks wrote:
> Edward Diener No Spam wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> Edward Diener No Spam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has there ever been, or is there presently anybody, in the Python
>>>> developer community who sees the same need and is working t
Richard Brodie wrote:
> "Edward Diener No Spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> "Thinking in Java or C++" as opposed to Python does not mean anything to me
>> as a general
>> statement. I am well aware of
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> "Edward Diener No Spam" wrote:
>
>> A RAD IDE tool to hook up components into an application or library (
>> module in Python ) has nothing to do with terseness and everything to do
>> with ease of programming.
>
> python alread
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
>> While I understand dynamic typing, I still think it is possible to
>> create attributes in a Python component model which could tell a RAD
>> tool what type the attribute will encompass for the purpose of
>> properties and events. Obviously a "name, type" tuple, among oth
Tim Chase wrote:
>> There's no doubt that Python's excellent introspection mechanism
>> allows an outside RAD-like tool to inspect the workings of any Python
>> object. But that does not make it a component model in my original use
>> of the term on this thread. A RAD tool needs to know what pro
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Edward Diener No Spam wrote:
>
>> There's no doubt that Python's excellent introspection mechanism allows
>> an outside RAD-like tool to inspect the workings of any Python object.
>> But that does not make it a component model in my o
Paul Boddie wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Edward> My OP was just to query whether a component model existed for
>> Edward> Python, like JavaBeans for Java or .Net for C#, C++/CLI
>> Edward> etc.
>>
>> For those of us who've never used Java, .Net or C++/CLI, a more concrete
>> description of
fumanchu wrote:
> Edward Diener No Spam wrote:
>> OK, here is my idea of what such a component model envisages as a list
>> of items. After this, unless I get some intelligent comments from people
>> who might be interested in what I envision, or something very similar
Kay Schluehr wrote:
> fumanchu wrote:
>
>>> 4) Custom property and component editors: A component editor can present
>>> a property editor or an editor for an entire component which the visual
>>> design-time RAD environment can use to allow the programmer end-user of
>>> the component to set or g
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> fumanchu wrote:
>
>>> 4) Custom property and component editors: A component editor can present
>>> a property editor or an editor for an entire component which the visual
>>> design-time RAD environment can use to allow the programmer end-user of
>>> the component to set or
Peter Wang wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> It looks as if traits is an attempt to create a "property" in the
>> component terminology which I originally specified. I will take a look
>> at it.
>
> Traits is frighteningly similar to the requirements that you laid out
> in your post (the example fo
Kay Schluehr wrote:
> val bykoski wrote:
>> Peter Wang wrote:
>>> Edward,
>>>
>>> This isn't in response to any specific one of the 100+ posts on this
>>> thread, but I justed wanted to encourage you to continue your
>>> investigation into Python component models and maybe looking for some
>>> comm
Emma wrote:
> Successful candidates meet the following requirements:
> ยท A burning desire to build rock-solid apps that people will be
> unable
> to live without
I use to have a burning desire to cleverly answer questionnaires for
companies which either don't exist or, if they do, don't tell you
25 matches
Mail list logo
