Home » Eclipse Projects » Eclipse Platform » Naming the Eclipse Application Framework
| Naming the Eclipse Application Framework [message #2865] |
Tue, 22 April 2003 16:16  |
 David J. Orme
Messages: 291
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Standalone applications can be built on several levels of Eclipse
technology. A common current configuration is to build an application
using SWT+JFace, but not including the plugin framework or the
viewer/editor framework. As Eclipse evolves, it would not be suprising
if even more Eclipse technologies become used in standalone applications
in a way similar to JFace.
However, there is currently no commonly-understood term describing
standalone applications that are built using more than SWT but using
less than the entire Eclipse platform. Consequently, many people have
begun calling these applications "SWT applications" because SWT is the
most recognizable ingredient in these applications. This has resulted
in confusion about where to post messages in the newsgroups for people
who are building applications using SWT+JFace (for example). These
really aren't eclipse.platform applications. Neither are they SWT
applications.
The current solution has been to observe that JFace is currently
distributed as a part of the Eclipse platform (Platform/UI);
consequently all JFace questions are being directed to e.platform. This
is a good intermediate solution, but if more and more people build
standalone applications based on something less than the Eclipse
platform, but something more than just SWT, this confusion is likely to
increase, not decrease. This will especially be true if people keep
calling these applications "SWT applications" after their most
recognizable ingredient.
Therefore, I propose that the first step to solving this problem is to
come up with a name describing the set of technologies (SWT, JFace,
etc.) that together make up The Eclipse Application Framework, but don't
also include both the plugin manager and the viewer/editor framework.
By extension, this will give us a term to describe the applications
built using these technologies.
The result will be that we will be able to more precisely describe what
we are talking about when we describe an application built using Eclipse
technologies. This will also head off the confusion caused by people
calling Eclipse Application Framework programs SWT programs and
consequently posting JFace questions in the SWT newsgroup.
The best name I've thought of so far is Eclipse Application Framework
(EAF); certainly somebody else can do better... :-)
Thoughts?
Dave
--
Dave Orme
Advanced Systems Concepts
http://www.swtworkbench.com
|
|
|
| Re: Naming the Eclipse Application Framework [message #2951 is a reply to message #2865] |
Tue, 22 April 2003 17:24  |
Hans Deragon
Messages: 17
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
David J. Orme wrote:
> Standalone applications can be built on several levels of Eclipse
> technology. A common current configuration is to build an application
> using SWT+JFace, but not including the plugin framework or the
> viewer/editor framework. As Eclipse evolves, it would not be suprising
> if even more Eclipse technologies become used in standalone applications
> in a way similar to JFace.
>
> However, there is currently no commonly-understood term describing
> standalone applications that are built using more than SWT but using
> less than the entire Eclipse platform. Consequently, many people have
> begun calling these applications "SWT applications" because SWT is the
> most recognizable ingredient in these applications. This has resulted
> in confusion about where to post messages in the newsgroups for people
> who are building applications using SWT+JFace (for example). These
> really aren't eclipse.platform applications. Neither are they SWT
> applications.
>
> The current solution has been to observe that JFace is currently
> distributed as a part of the Eclipse platform (Platform/UI);
> consequently all JFace questions are being directed to e.platform. This
> is a good intermediate solution, but if more and more people build
> standalone applications based on something less than the Eclipse
> platform, but something more than just SWT, this confusion is likely to
> increase, not decrease. This will especially be true if people keep
> calling these applications "SWT applications" after their most
> recognizable ingredient.
Your idea is not that bad, but most people working on GUI stuff probably only
read eclipse.platform.swt. I am concerned that if I post a JFace question to
eclipse.platform, many people with the answer would simply not have read it,
simply because they might not be subscribed to eclipse.platform. Myself, I am
currently only reading eclipse.platform.swt...
Maybe we should rename eclipse.platform.swt to eclipse.platform.gui. This
would be clearer. Maybe we could create:
eclipse.platform.gui.swt
eclipse.platform.gui.jface
But given the traffic, that might be overkill for the moment. And if someone
asks a generic question like "how can I do XYZ"?, well that person cannot
figure out in advance if the answer would relate to SWT or JFace, thus that
person would not know in which newsgroup to post. Probably renaming
eclipse.platform.swt to eclipse.platform.gui would be the best.
> Therefore, I propose that the first step to solving this problem is to
> come up with a name describing the set of technologies (SWT, JFace,
> etc.) that together make up The Eclipse Application Framework, but don't
> also include both the plugin manager and the viewer/editor framework. By
> extension, this will give us a term to describe the applications built
> using these technologies.
>
> The result will be that we will be able to more precisely describe what
> we are talking about when we describe an application built using Eclipse
> technologies. This will also head off the confusion caused by people
> calling Eclipse Application Framework programs SWT programs and
> consequently posting JFace questions in the SWT newsgroup.
>
> The best name I've thought of so far is Eclipse Application Framework
> (EAF); certainly somebody else can do better... :-)
>
> Thoughts
Eclipse Standalone Application Framework (ESAF) would be marginally better.
But this would apply for more than SWT and JFace. It could also include sound
manipulation if one day such plugin is available (maybe it already is? I did
not check).
Eclipse GUI Standalone Framework (EGSF) could refer to SWT+JFace and any
future plugin/library related to user interface. EGSF would be a componant of
EAF (or ESAF).
> Dave
Thank you Dave to bring this issue out.
Hans Deragon
--
Deragon Informatique inc. Open source:
http://www.deragon.biz http://swtmvcwrapper.sourceforge.net
mailto://hans@deragon.biz http://autopoweroff.sourceforge.net
|
|
| |
| Re: Naming the Eclipse Application Framework [message #6080 is a reply to message #3051] |
Wed, 23 April 2003 07:16 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: pdu.kelua.com
As H. Deragon, I think it could be a good idea to group all gui
considerations in one group because these problems/questions/answers
adress the same people. And for convenience, it is simpler to read one
group than two or more.
So, in this way, Graphic Eclipse Framework is a good name but GEF
already exists for another purpose...
Pr.
|
|
|
| Re: Naming the Eclipse Application Framework [message #7590 is a reply to message #2951] |
Wed, 23 April 2003 15:32 |
David J. Orme
Messages: 291
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hans Deragon wrote:
> David J. Orme wrote:
>> The current solution has been to observe that JFace is currently
>> distributed as a part of the Eclipse platform (Platform/UI);
>> consequently all JFace questions are being directed to e.platform.
>> This is a good intermediate solution, but if more and more people
>> build standalone applications based on something less than the Eclipse
>> platform, but something more than just SWT, this confusion is likely
>> to increase, not decrease. This will especially be true if people
>> keep calling these applications "SWT applications" after their most
>> recognizable ingredient.
>
> Your idea is not that bad, but most people working on GUI stuff probably
> only read eclipse.platform.swt. I am concerned that if I post a JFace
> question to eclipse.platform, many people with the answer would simply
> not have read it, simply because they might not be subscribed to
> eclipse.platform. Myself, I am currently only reading
> eclipse.platform.swt...
I share your concern, but in this case I'm only reporting policy, not
making it.
> Maybe we should rename eclipse.platform.swt to eclipse.platform.gui.
> This would be clearer. Maybe we could create:
>
> eclipse.platform.gui.swt
> eclipse.platform.gui.jface
>
> But given the traffic, that might be overkill for the moment. And if
> someone asks a generic question like "how can I do XYZ"?, well that
> person cannot figure out in advance if the answer would relate to SWT or
> JFace, thus that person would not know in which newsgroup to post.
> Probably renaming eclipse.platform.swt to eclipse.platform.gui would be
> the best.
Again, I'm only the messenger here so please don't shoot me. ;-) I
personally think this would be better too but I didn't make the decision
and I think that what we've got is so much better than what we had that
I'm not about to start complaining now.
On the other hand, if you feel strongly about this, I suggest opening a
new bug report in Bugzilla and we'll see how many people vote for it.
The argument against this seems to have been that there currently aren't
that many people using Eclipse this way.
But there haven't been any benchmarks to show it one way or another.
Let's use Bugzilla as our community interest profiler and see what happens.
>> The best name I've thought of so far is Eclipse Application Framework
>> (EAF); certainly somebody else can do better... :-)
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> Eclipse Standalone Application Framework (ESAF) would be marginally
> better. But this would apply for more than SWT and JFace. It could also
> include sound manipulation if one day such plugin is available (maybe it
> already is? I did not check).
I don't think there's a cross-platform sound plug-in yet (other than
what's in Java already).
Just to throw another few possibilities into the mix:
Rich Client Framework (RCF)
or
Eclipse Client Framework (ECF)
Dave
--
Dave Orme
Advanced Systems Concepts
http://www.swtworkbench.com
|
|
| |
| Re: Naming the Eclipse Application Framework [message #7632 is a reply to message #2865] |
Wed, 23 April 2003 16:32 |
David J. Orme
Messages: 291
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I just came across the Eclipse 2.2/3.0 call for ideas. Based on this,
maybe we should wait until the Eclipse rich client layer for 2.2/3.0 is
finalized before tackling this. It is likely to supercede anything that
we do here anyway.
Unless someone from Eclipse.org says otherwise, I think we should hold
off on further discussion of this...
Best,
Dave
David J. Orme wrote:
> Standalone applications can be built on several levels of Eclipse
> technology. A common current configuration is to build an application
> using SWT+JFace, but not including the plugin framework or the
> viewer/editor framework. As Eclipse evolves, it would not be suprising
> if even more Eclipse technologies become used in standalone applications
> in a way similar to JFace.
>
> However, there is currently no commonly-understood term describing
> standalone applications that are built using more than SWT but using
> less than the entire Eclipse platform. Consequently, many people have
> begun calling these applications "SWT applications" because SWT is the
> most recognizable ingredient in these applications. This has resulted
> in confusion about where to post messages in the newsgroups for people
> who are building applications using SWT+JFace (for example). These
> really aren't eclipse.platform applications. Neither are they SWT
> applications.
>
> The current solution has been to observe that JFace is currently
> distributed as a part of the Eclipse platform (Platform/UI);
> consequently all JFace questions are being directed to e.platform. This
> is a good intermediate solution, but if more and more people build
> standalone applications based on something less than the Eclipse
> platform, but something more than just SWT, this confusion is likely to
> increase, not decrease. This will especially be true if people keep
> calling these applications "SWT applications" after their most
> recognizable ingredient.
>
> Therefore, I propose that the first step to solving this problem is to
> come up with a name describing the set of technologies (SWT, JFace,
> etc.) that together make up The Eclipse Application Framework, but don't
> also include both the plugin manager and the viewer/editor framework. By
> extension, this will give us a term to describe the applications built
> using these technologies.
>
> The result will be that we will be able to more precisely describe what
> we are talking about when we describe an application built using Eclipse
> technologies. This will also head off the confusion caused by people
> calling Eclipse Application Framework programs SWT programs and
> consequently posting JFace questions in the SWT newsgroup.
>
> The best name I've thought of so far is Eclipse Application Framework
> (EAF); certainly somebody else can do better... :-)
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Dave
--
Dave Orme
Advanced Systems Concepts
http://www.swtworkbench.com
|
|
|
| Re: Naming the Eclipse Application Framework [message #13238 is a reply to message #2865] |
Thu, 24 April 2003 19:44 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: genadyb.inter.net.il
I suggest NOVA as the name for the framework.
If follows the path of "Eclipse" being an astronomic phenomena, and
sounds like an excellent new thing.
I'm sure it can be acronims of something, like
* New Open Vendor Architecture
* Native Object Vault Assembly
* New Object Vault Architecture
.... or whatever
If anybody have more suggestions plesse post them :)
Genady
David J. Orme wrote:
> Standalone applications can be built on several levels of Eclipse
> technology. A common current configuration is to build an application
> using SWT+JFace, but not including the plugin framework or the
> viewer/editor framework. As Eclipse evolves, it would not be suprising
> if even more Eclipse technologies become used in standalone applications
> in a way similar to JFace.
>
> However, there is currently no commonly-understood term describing
> standalone applications that are built using more than SWT but using
> less than the entire Eclipse platform. Consequently, many people have
> begun calling these applications "SWT applications" because SWT is the
> most recognizable ingredient in these applications. This has resulted
> in confusion about where to post messages in the newsgroups for people
> who are building applications using SWT+JFace (for example). These
> really aren't eclipse.platform applications. Neither are they SWT
> applications.
>
> The current solution has been to observe that JFace is currently
> distributed as a part of the Eclipse platform (Platform/UI);
> consequently all JFace questions are being directed to e.platform. This
> is a good intermediate solution, but if more and more people build
> standalone applications based on something less than the Eclipse
> platform, but something more than just SWT, this confusion is likely to
> increase, not decrease. This will especially be true if people keep
> calling these applications "SWT applications" after their most
> recognizable ingredient.
>
> Therefore, I propose that the first step to solving this problem is to
> come up with a name describing the set of technologies (SWT, JFace,
> etc.) that together make up The Eclipse Application Framework, but don't
> also include both the plugin manager and the viewer/editor framework. By
> extension, this will give us a term to describe the applications built
> using these technologies.
>
> The result will be that we will be able to more precisely describe what
> we are talking about when we describe an application built using Eclipse
> technologies. This will also head off the confusion caused by people
> calling Eclipse Application Framework programs SWT programs and
> consequently posting JFace questions in the SWT newsgroup.
>
> The best name I've thought of so far is Eclipse Application Framework
> (EAF); certainly somebody else can do better... :-)
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Dave
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Naming the Eclipse Application Framework [message #16443 is a reply to message #15414] |
Fri, 25 April 2003 18:35 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: genadyb.inter.net.il
Hmm, check this: http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.htm
Anyway, I need to learn spanish, it's a nice lanuage :)
Genady
David J. Orme wrote:
> Genady wrote:
>
>> I suggest NOVA as the name for the framework.
>> If follows the path of "Eclipse" being an astronomic phenomena, and
>> sounds like an excellent new thing.
>> I'm sure it can be acronims of something, like
>> * New Open Vendor Architecture
>> * Native Object Vault Assembly
>> * New Object Vault Architecture
>> ... or whatever
>>
>> If anybody have more suggestions plesse post them :)
>
>
> I really like this...except for what it means if you read it in Spanish;
> in Spanish "No va" means "it doesn't go" or more literally and
> colloquially, "No go".
>
> (General Motors ran into this too when they tried to introduce their car
> named Nova in Spanish-speaking countries and wondered why it didn't
> sell... :-)
>
> But if anyone comes up with other ideas, by all means it can't hurt to
> bring them up.
>
>
> Dave
>
|
|
|
| Re: Naming the Eclipse Application Framework [message #18542 is a reply to message #7590] |
Mon, 28 April 2003 09:28 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: joerg.von.frantzius.artnology.nospam.com
David J. Orme wrote:
>> > Thoughts?
>>
>> Eclipse Standalone Application Framework (ESAF) would be marginally
>> better. But this would apply for more than SWT and JFace. It could
>> also include sound manipulation if one day such plugin is available
>> (maybe it already is? I did not check).
>
>
> I don't think there's a cross-platform sound plug-in yet (other than
> what's in Java already).
>
> Just to throw another few possibilities into the mix:
>
> Rich Client Framework (RCF)
>
> or
>
> Eclipse Client Framework (ECF)
What's so bad about Eclipse Application Framework? Calling it an
application framework really makes it clearer that one is talking about
applications of their own right, in contrast to plugins of an IDE
application.
I'd very much like to discourage any name involving "rich", personally
that really gives me the marketing creeps. Also, "application" already
sounds quite "standalone", and I don't quite see the point in "client"
in this context.
I find it good to call that framework what it is, a framework. Much like
what Smalltalk provided, and what Sun more often than not tended to mess
up.
Jörg.
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Jul 27 16:41:13 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03722 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
