Actually the Glamour API could be considered to be an internal DSL to describe browsers. I assume that a forth and five iteration are necessary to make it more user friendly. That is the reason why I did not pursue Glamour this May. I thought instead of going for Glamour I can just go through the effort of learning the ToolBuilder builder DSL -- which in the end is not more difficult either. A note aside: Maybe I push the idea of DSL too much here. The question is: where do we talk about an API and where does the DSL idea start? However --- though there are alot examples -- even more example will help and I recently enjoyed trying out some of them in the Moose-Glamour-Image. --Hannes On 11/4/10, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr&gt; wrote: > no ooooooooooooo > > Don't limit yourself show us your errors > > > your errors are coool > > Glamour API should be better :) > > Stef > > On Nov 4, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Benjamin wrote: > >> Ouups :s >> >> >> I'll try to open my both eyes before sending a mail now :) >> >> >> Thank you >> >> Ben >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

Hello Tudor On 11/4/10, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hi, > > The Glamour API is intended to be an internal DSL. This is particularly > useful for people that do not know Smalltalk :) > > What parts of the API is not user friendly for you? At this moment I cannot say more that I would prefer simpler statements. A more procedural builder oriented style. Not everything in one big statement with nested blocks. You have the graphical layout and the connections and I would just like to describe that in a sequence of statements. Not in a hierarchy of nested blocks. Less implicit semantics.

> Regarding the ToolBuilder vs Glamour issue, ToolBuilder is a User Interface > framework, while Glamour is a browser engine. Sure. But as mentioned above for less complex cases it is the same. The initial effort you have to put into learning the Glamour DSL is still considerable.

To give you an idea, with the > ToolBuilder, you place buttons in a window. Yes and no. You take an existing example as a template and change method names. There are many examples.

E.g. a Two pane browser, a three pane browser, with and without text window and so on... With Glamour, you define the > data flow and the way data is presented at a higher level. For a browser the data flow is often pretty standard.

> Regarding examples, what kind of things are you interested in? More simple examples which do something useful. Just to get the flavor of the DSL. A more complex one: An example where I can navigate a network. I see all the neighbors of a node (as a list and as graph). A node has a content window. Navigation buttons forth and back. Some real world examples outside the Smalltalk class hierarchy, for example a WordNet browser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordNet

Thank you for answering and keeping up this interesting work.

--Hannes > > > On 4 Nov 2010, at 14:43, Hannes Hirzel wrote: > >> Actually the Glamour API could be considered to be an internal DSL to >> describe browsers. I assume that a forth and five iteration are >> necessary to make it more user friendly. That is the reason why I did >> not pursue Glamour this May. I thought instead of going for Glamour I >> can just go through the effort of learning the ToolBuilder builder DSL >> -- which in the end is not more difficult either. >> >> A note aside: Maybe I push the idea of DSL too much here. The question >> is: where do we talk about an API and where does the DSL idea start? >> >> However --- though there are alot examples -- even more example will >> help and I recently enjoyed trying out some of them in the >> Moose-Glamour-Image. >> >> --Hannes >> >> On 11/4/10, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr&gt; wrote: >>> no ooooooooooooo >>> >>> Don't limit yourself show us your errors >>> >>> >>> your errors are coool >>> >>> Glamour API should be better :) >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> On Nov 4, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Benjamin wrote: >>> >>>> Ouups :s >>>> >>>> >>>> I'll try to open my both eyes before sending a mail now :) >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you >>>> >>>> Ben >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch >>>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch >>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "It's not how it is, it is how we see it." > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev