Re: [MindIO-devel] ApplicationObject

[Ian V. <vi...@ig...>]

Jeremy

I think we are on different tacks here, but it wont hurt to discuss this 
anyway. We apparently have different view of what an engine is. I am seeing 
something that is similar to what I have experienced in CorelDraw and Excel 
etc where the host application declares a single object, the 
'applicationobject' rather than your conception where the host application 
declares the entire object set. Both view are probably valid in their own 
right I expect.

I have drawn a graphic of what I was thinking of and it can be viewed at:
http://mindio.sourceforge.net/graphics/mindioeegengine1.html

The graphic shows the property relationships rather than the interface 
relationships, is probably not that useful. It also assumes a superclass 
object called a 'cell', which is my new term for a layoutable, or 
functional. (cell as in neuron) However I see that you don't consider a 
superclass as necessary. I respect your more informed judgement on this, 
but thought I would post up the diagram anyway, since I already had it made.

I have no experience of a host application that declares more than the 
single application object. Hence the design. Basically it mimics the 
CorelDraw and Excel conceptions of an automation engine. Clarions object 
set also has a similar 'application' centered  object relationship format 
so I presumed it was 'normal'.

I guess I had in mind a basic mindio application that could be used to run 
an NFB session, via its inbuilt interface, but that the same application 
could be run be a supervisor app that drives it via the automation 
interface, basically replacing the standard interface. Or something like that.

Let me know what you think. As before this is only an exploratory idea, for 
discussion purposes.

Ian

PS.. I just got my scanner working again so hopefully tomorrow can post up 
graphic of the CorelDraw object set for interest and reference.