Brad A. Myers. Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs. In Proceedings of the 4th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pages 211--220, Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA, November 1991. ACM SIGGRAPH.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....changes. Our toolkit o#ers a flexible object coupling service [8] which allows the developer to trace changes in a shared data object and to propagate these changes to the user interface. This service is realised via a kind of extended callback mechanism, which avoids the confusing program code [9] of the normal callback mechanism. It allows to restrict the passed information to the needs of a developer defined listener method. For this the developer has to define a method mapping between a shared object s method and a corresponding listener s method; the listener s method is called ....

Brad A. Myers. Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs. In Proceedings of the 4th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pages 211--220, Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA, November 1991. ACM SIGGRAPH.

....Interactor is: Accot et al. call that part low level interaction , Paterno and Harrison call them interactors too [27,19] although their interactors are more structured internally than what we describe here. In the Garnet toolkit [24] the term interactor is used with a similar meaning as here [23]. This article is organized as follows: section 1 describes the Esterel language and tools. Section 2 shows some examples of its use for specifying and verifying interactors. Section 3 discusses the relative strengths and weaknesses of Esterel compared to other languages and formalisms before ....

Brad A. Myers. Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UI Builders, pages 211--220, 1991.

....[11] Unfortunately, UIMSs still require many callback routines which add to the complexity of the application. In an e ort to reduce the burden of callbacks in a UIMS, Druid [14] uses a demonstration phase to teach the system valid interactions amongst the components. Similarly, the Gilt system [9] introduces a number of mechanisms including demonstration to reduce callbacks. With a UIMS, once the UI has been generated it is dicult (or in most cases impossible) to introduce changes to the interface. To address this restriction, 8 the work in [7] allows concurrent development of the ....

B. Myers. Separating application code from toolkits: Eliminating the spaghetti of call-backs. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, November 1991.

....The User Interaction Manager has been designed with this in mind. Practical experience using the User Interaction Manager has shown that the typical higher order features lead to an improved application structure. Archetypical problems of traditional GUI s, such as those reported by Meyers [34] in Eliminating the Spaghetti of Callbacks are therefore not noticed in a carefully designed higher order, fully concurrent setting. 8 Conclusion and Future Work Provision of concurrency, GUI s and gateways to foreign systems within a functional setting have been a lively track of research ....

B. A. Myers. Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, November 1991.

....Write events are usually triggered in reaction to user events. Read events are not triggered automatically. Active values could be used for this. A similar approach for separating user interface and application eliminating callbacks by means of a filter mechanism has been described in [13]. Complex Interactions Simple interactions like pointing or selecting can be handled easily by most interface toolkits because they involve a simple event action rule, i.e. when a certain event arrives, the associated action is performed. Complex interaction techniques like drawing, painting, ....

B. A. Myers. Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 211--220, November 1991.

.... burden of using the API, as demonstrated by the popularity of C class frameworks such as Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC) or Borland s Object Windows Library (OWL) The remaining two problems are in fact related, consequences of Win32 being a message passing API based on callback procedures [12]. It has been recognized that to ensure interactivity of applications in the presence of computation intensive code, multiple threads should be used [2, 5] It turns out that by using a truly concurrent approach rather than the system level threads available from the NT kernel, one can construct ....

B. A. Myers. Separating application code from toolkits: Eliminating the spaghetti of call-backs. In ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 1991.

....Hours button must be reactivated, since the user now has three free reservation slots available instead of just two. A survey of existing user interface software has concluded that such interdependence among components leads to a spaghetti program structure, providing a maintenance nightmare [13]. Clock s architecture language so localizes the e#ects of change that the modification is as simple as changing the architecture from the version of figure 2 to that of figure 4. Following an overview of the Clock architecture language, the remaining sections show how Clock s architecture ....

Brad A. Myers. Separating application code from toolkits: Eliminating the spaghetti code of callbacks. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 211-- 220. ACM Press, November 1991.

....enables the programmer to join the modules via direct manipulation to obtain a composite widget. However, MoDE restricts the composition to rather high level prefabricated constituents, and furthermore, still requires the programmer to manage the complex spaghetti of callback functions. Myers [7] proposed a system that uses direct manipulation to specify the desired connection among widgets. Although it does increase the modularity by separating the application code and widgets, the level of widgets it supports are prefabricated ones (e.g. buttons) thus, only simple and obvious ....

Brad A. Myers. Separating application code from toolkits: Eliminating the spagetti of call-backs. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 1991.

....only have a procedural interface. Call back procedures have to be provided by the programmer, which serve as event handlers for all the actions in the interface. There is some on going research in reducing the number of callbacks, to achieve more isolation between the application and the interface [51]. There is also some interest in virtual toolkits [52, 53, 54] which try to hide the differences among the various toolkits, by providing virtual widgets which can be mapped into the widgets of each toolkit. UIMSs, on the other hand, are characterized by the following two features: 1) complete ....

Brad A. Myers, "Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs," ACM SIGGRAPH Symp. User Interface Software and Technology, Proc. UIST'91, Hilton Head, SC, Nov.1991, pp.211-220.

....code is again dormant until invoked by the user interface layer in response to user interactions. While architecturally this is again in contrast to Chiron, we are in the process of incorporating constraint mechanisms into Chiron to achieve many of the benefits exhibited in Garnet (and Gilt [7]) In the Dynamic Windows Common Lisp Interface Manager [5] presentation types are built through inheritance from application objects. This is similar in concept to the way Chiron artists are built, since they obtain much of their interface from the package specifications of the object they ....

B. A. Myers. Separating application code from toolkits: Eliminating the spaghetti of call-backs. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 95--105, Hilton Head, South Carolina, November 1991.

.... interesting to benefit from higher level functions than those of the original toolkit, as it is the case here) On the other hand, real interfaces often contain quite a large number of callback procedures that only perform trivial tasks and that make the code look like a Spaghetti of call backs [3]. The main purpose here is to provide simple ways to eliminate most of these unnecessary callbacks. This can be done in the three following ways: implicitly . by conditional evaluation . by active values. Implicit behaviors Certain behaviors are automatically added by XXL when combining ....

Myers B. Separating Application Code From Toolkits: Eliminating The Spaghetti Of Call-Backs. ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 211-220, Nov. 1991.

....one test using SILK, I sketched this screen using a mouse in just 70 seconds (sketched on paper it took 53 seconds) The use of a mouse accounts for the increase in time compared with using pen and paper. Creating this same interface (see Figure 1 6) with a traditional user interface builder, Gilt [Myers 1991], took 329 seconds, which is nearly five times longer. In addition, the UI builder time does not include adding representative icons to the tool palette due to the excessive time required to design or acquire them. Figure 1 5. Sketched application screen for a drawing editor. 1.2. DRAWBACKS OF ....

....window, and to generate real widgets and graphical objects in this window. These widgets can take on the look and feel of a standard graphical user interface, such as Motif, Windows, or Macintosh. The current version of SILK generates Motif widgets that can be copied and then pasted into Gilt [Myers 1991], the Garnet user interface builder. Figure 5 3 illustrates the transformed version of the screen illustrated in Figure 5 1. The widgets and objects are positioned in the same locations that they occupied in the original sketch. Compound widgets (i.e. pulldown menus, panels of buttons, check ....

Brad A. Myers. "Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs". Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH and SIGCHI Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Hilton Head, SC, November, 1991. pp. 211-220. Proceedings UIST'91.

....This approach presumes that the two parts are loosely coupled, and that infrequent subroutine calls and callbacks are sufficient to connect the two. However, in many applications the user interface modules require much tighter coupling, and there are some efforts to reduce the needs for call backs [9]. We adopt an alternative approach to the software system decomposition (Figure 2) In our approach, the system is first decomposed into functional modules, i.e. vips) then each module is divided into the interface part and the computation (application) part. This approach presumes that the ....

Myers, B. "Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs," Proceeding of the Forth Annual ACM Symposium on User iNterface Software and Technology, Hilton Head, SC, November 1991.

No context found.

Brad A. Myers. Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of CallBacks. ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Proceedings UIST'91, Hilton Head, SC, Nov., 1991, pp. 211-220.

No context found.

Brad A. Myers. "Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs," ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Proceedings UIST'91. Hilton Head, SC, Nov, 1991b. pp. 211-220.

....interfaces. These systems also use constraints, which are relationships that are declared once and maintained by the system, to tie objects values together. Amulet and Garnet al..so include many other innovations, which are described in various papers [Myers 1989] Myers 1990a] Vander Zanden 1990] Myers 1991b] Myers 1991a] Hashimoto 1992] Myers 1994] Vander Zanden 1994] Vander Zanden 1995b] Myers 1996a] Myers 1996b] Myers 1998] This chapter concentrates on the prototype instance object systems in Garnet and Amulet. In Garnet s and Amulet s prototype instance object systems, there is no concept of a ....

Brad A. Myers. "Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs," ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Proceedings UIST'91. Hilton Head, SC, Nov, 1991b. pp. 211-220.

....to be specified pictorially. 2.1 Interface Builders There have been a large number of systems that allow users to select items from a pre defined library of widgets, and position them on the screen. Some of these, including Menulay [2] Trillium [7] DialogEditor [3] vu [40] Druid [41] Gilt [28], and the NeXT Interface Builder [35] provide a graphical editor that allows the position and size of each widget to be specified in a direct manipulation manner using a mouse. Often, these systems allow a few limited properties to be changed using a dialog box. Lapidary also provides the ability ....

Brad A. Myers. Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of CallBacks. ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Proceedings UIST'91, Hilton Head, SC, Nov., 1991, pp. 211-220.

No context found.

Brad A. Myers. Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs. In Proceedings of the 4th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pages 211--220, Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA, November 1991. ACM SIGGRAPH.

No context found.

B. A. Myers, "Separating application code from toolkits: Eliminating the spaghetti of call-backs," in Proceedings of UIST'91, pp. 211--220, ACM, New York, 1991.

No context found.

Brad A. Myers. Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs. In Proceedings of the 4th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pages 211--220, Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA, November 1991. ACM SIGGRAPH.

No context found.

Myers B. Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Nov. 11-13, 1991.

No context found.

Brad A. Myers. Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs. In Proceedings of the 4th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pages 211--220, Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA, November 1991. ACM SIGGRAPH.

No context found.

Brad A. Myers. Separating Application Code from Toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of Call-Backs. In Proceedings of the 4th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pages 211--220, Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA, November 1991. ACM SIGGRAPH.

No context found.

B. A. Myers, "Separating application code from toolkits: Eliminating the spaghetti of call-backs," in Proceedings of UIST'91, pp. 211--220, ACM, New York, 1991.

No context found.

Myers Brad. A. , Separating application code from toolkits: Eliminating the Spaghetti of callbacks. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. Nov. 1991. pp 211-220.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC