[Bf-committers] Declarative UI Experiment

[Elia Sarti]

Maybe I'm wrong but I think the major job would be converting all the 
draw functions, not creating new files or polls. Especially considering 
that to my understanding polls are there just to keep you from 
instancing or always calling the draw function, which would be simpler 
in a declarative language.

Again I think the point is work required vs how better it gets and I 
don't think changing one function to a dictionary will make it much 
easier to regular users and definitely not easier for developers.


Campbell Barton wrote, on 08/10/2010 01:14 PM:
> The second python markup example was just made up using python like
> syntax so I had a go at making the declaration into working python.
>
> http://www.pasteall.org/14923/python
>
> To show its an XML equivalent theres a XML conversion function as well
> (output at the bottom).
>
> Elia, using a python based definition inline just means we can keep
> the same classes and don't have the hassle of creating a whole new set
> of files, getting the poll functions inlined in XML (or similar).
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Elia Sarti<vekoon at gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> How does this make it more like what we have now?
>> You'd still need to rewrite all UI scripts from scratch.
>>
>> As I said to avoid having two different ways to do 1 thing you simply
>> let Python have full control of the layout system itself (even leaving
>> the same exact API as now, just adding some more) so if you're a Python
>> developer you can do everything in Python, while if you're a user you
>> can use a simpler declarative language (but our own integrated custom
>> language, not XML).
>>
>>
>> Thomas Dinges wrote, on 08/10/2010 07:47 AM:
>>      
>>>     Hey Campbell,
>>> my main -1 argument was because of the big language change.
>>> Also i was afraid of then having 2 files for a script (a py file for
>>> operators and 1 xml file for the ui)
>>>
>>> The first 2 versions you propose now are much better than the xml
>>> version in my oppinion.
>>> I even would prefer the second method, as it is much more readable.
>>>
>>> As I said, let's focus more on what we have now and make changes to that.
>>>
>>> +1 to that now. ;-)
>>>
>>> Am 10.08.2010 05:34, schrieb Campbell Barton:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> As I feared the 'XML' topic came up, and without replying to each
>>>> statement made above lets just say its a very different direction to
>>>> the one we have been going in and I can understand resistance.
>>>>
>>>> The original spec for 2.5 was that we would have a UI layout defined in python,
>>>> So here are 2 examples of python defined declarative UI's which could
>>>> fairly easily co-exist with what we have now.
>>>>
>>>> - basically a python version of the XML panel
>>>> http://pastie.org/1083109
>>>>
>>>> - this is python also but relies on having some custom classes defined
>>>> which would expand themselves into the data structure above. Its nice
>>>> in that it is much easier to read/write, but its also not pure python.
>>>> http://pastie.org/1083111
>>>>
>>>> - original XML for reference.
>>>> http://pastie.org/1083129
>>>>
>>>> For those who gave the proposal a -1, what about one of the 2 methods above?
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
>>      
>
>
>