Naming: a Component or Widget?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Naming: a Component or Widget?

Janko Mivšek
Dear all,

I'm thinking about if our naming of WebComponent can be rather changed
to the WebWidget instead?

One reason is to separate it more from WebElements which are called
(stateless) components in other frameworks anyway.

Another reason is that Nico's Iliad and seems that other frameworks like
to call it the Widget too.

So then we would say that:

  - WebElement is a stateless component and
  - WebWidget is a statefull component in Aida

What do you think?

Janko


--
Janko Mivšek
Svetovalec za informatiko
Eranova d.o.o.
Ljubljana, Slovenija
www.eranova.si
tel:  01 514 22 55
faks: 01 514 22 56
gsm: 031 674 565
_______________________________________________
Aida mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Naming: a Component or Widget?

Janko Mivšek
For easier decision here is an article from Wikipedia:

Web Widget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_widget

A web widget is a portable chunk of code that can be installed and
executed within any separate HTML-based web page by an end user without
requiring additional compilation. They are derived from the idea of code
reuse. Other terms used to describe web widgets include: gadget, badge,
module, webjit, capsule, snippet, mini and flake. Web widgets usually
but not always use DHTML, JavaScript, or Adobe Flash.

Widgets often take the form of on-screen tools (clocks, event
countdowns, auction-tickers, stock market tickers, flight arrival
information, daily weather etc).

Widgets

A widget is anything that can be embedded within a page of HTML, i.e. a
web page. A widget adds some content to that page that is not static.
Generally widgets are originated by third parties, though they can be
home made. Embeddable chunks of code have existed since the early
development of the World Wide Web. Web developers have long sought and
used third party code chunks in their pages. Early web widgets provided
functions such as link counters and advertising banners.

Usage and criticism

Applications can be integrated within a third party website by the
placement of a small snippet of code. The code brings in ‘live’ content
– advertisements, links, images – from a third party site without the
web site owner having to update or control.

End users can utilize Web Widgets to enhance a number of web-based
hosts, or drop targets. Categories of drop targets include social
networks, blogs, wikis and personal homepages. Although end users
primarily use Web Widgets to enhance their personal web experiences, or
the web experiences of visitors to their personal sites, corporations
can potentially use Web Widgets to improve their web sites using
syndicated content and functionality from third party providers.

The use of web widgets has been increasingly proposed as a marketing
channel that could replace the less effective targeted banner ads and
take advantage of the viral distribution in social networks. This usage
has been criticized as ineffective [1] on the basis that users of a
social space are not mainly in a mindset receptive to information
exposition but one of content creation.


See also GUI Widget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUI_widget

In computer programming, a widget (or control) is an element of a
graphical user interface (GUI) that displays an information arrangement
changeable by the user, such as a window or a text box. The defining
characteristic of a widget is to provide a single interaction point for
the direct manipulation of a given kind of data. Widgets are basic
visual building blocks which, combined in an application, hold all the
data processed by the application and the available interactions on this
data.



Janko Mivšek pravi:

> Dear all,
>
> I'm thinking about if our naming of WebComponent can be rather changed
> to the WebWidget instead?
>
> One reason is to separate it more from WebElements which are called
> (stateless) components in other frameworks anyway.
>
> Another reason is that Nico's Iliad and seems that other frameworks like
> to call it the Widget too.
>
> So then we would say that:
>
>   - WebElement is a stateless component and
>   - WebWidget is a statefull component in Aida
>
> What do you think?
>
> Janko
>
>

_______________________________________________
Aida mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Naming: a Component or Widget?

Herbert König
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Hi Janko,

JM> I'm thinking about if our naming of WebComponent can be rather changed
JM> to the WebWidget instead?

what will that mean for existing applications? Actually I only now
looked at WebComponent hierarchy.

Right now I use "component" in methods that create a part of a view
consisting of several elements. So components might be composites or
assemblies and independent of containing widgets or elements.

JM> Another reason is that Nico's Iliad and seems that other frameworks like
JM> to call it the Widget too.

In general adhering to conventions softens the learning to any
framework so I think it's good.

JM>   - WebElement is a stateless component and
JM>   - WebWidget is a statefull component in Aida

JM> What do you think?

I think it's good, even if I have to change a bit of my apps.

Cheers,

Herbert                            mailto:[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Aida mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Naming: a Component or Widget?

Janko Mivšek
Hi Herbert,

Herbert König pravi:

> JM> I'm thinking about if our naming of WebComponent can be rather changed
> JM> to the WebWidget instead?
>
> what will that mean for existing applications? Actually I only now
> looked at WebComponent hierarchy.

Not much I think. Just this rename and that's all. More important is
internally, which won't be visible to the average developer. Well,
encapsulating the complexity is the main OO strength!

> Right now I use "component" in methods that create a part of a view
> consisting of several elements. So components might be composites or
> assemblies and independent of containing widgets or elements.
>
> JM> Another reason is that Nico's Iliad and seems that other frameworks like
> JM> to call it the Widget too.
>
> In general adhering to conventions softens the learning to any
> framework so I think it's good.
>
> JM>   - WebElement is a stateless component and
> JM>   - WebWidget is a statefull component in Aida
>
> JM> What do you think?
>
> I think it's good, even if I have to change a bit of my apps.

You should just manually rename WebComponent to WebWidget before loading
this version and all will stay the same.

Janko
_______________________________________________
Aida mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Naming: a Component or Widget?

Nicolas Petton
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Le samedi 11 juillet 2009 à 10:56 +0200, Janko Mivšek a écrit :

> Dear all,
>
> I'm thinking about if our naming of WebComponent can be rather changed
> to the WebWidget instead?
>
> One reason is to separate it more from WebElements which are called
> (stateless) components in other frameworks anyway.
>
> Another reason is that Nico's Iliad and seems that other frameworks like
> to call it the Widget too.
I must admit that I only choosed to name them widgets because I liked
the name :)

Cheers!

Nico

_______________________________________________
Aida mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment