I've read a statement somewhere that generating UI automatically from DB layout (or business objects, or whatever other business layer) is a bad idea. I can also imagine a few good challenges that one would have to face in order to make something like this.
However I have not seen (nor could find) any examples of people attempting it. Thus I'm wondering - is it really that bad? It's definately not easy, but can it be done with any measure success? What are the major obstacles? It would be great to see some examples of successes and failures.
To clarify - with "generating UI automatically" I mean that the all forms with all their controls are generated completely automatically (at runtime or compile time), based perhaps on some hints in metadata on how the data should be represented. This is in contrast to designing forms by hand (as most people do).
Added: Found this somewhat related question
Added 2: OK, it seems that one way this can get pretty fair results is if enough presentation-related metadata is available. For this approach, how much would be "enough", and would it be any less work than designing the form manually? Does it also provide greater flexibility for future changes?
We had a project which would generate the database tables/stored proc as well as the UI from business classes. It was done in .NET and we used a lot of Custom Attributes on the classes and properties to make it behave how we wanted it to. It worked great though and if you manage to follow your design you can create customizations of your software really easily. We also did have a way of putting in "custom" user controls for some very exceptional cases.
All in all it worked out well for us. Unfortunately it is a sold banking product and there is no available source.
it's ok for something tiny where all you need is a utilitarian method to get the data in.
for anything resembling a real application though, it's a terrible idea. what makes for a good UI is the humanisation factor, the bits you tweak to ensure that this machine reacts well to a person's touch.
you just can't get that when your interface is generated mechanically.... well maybe with something approaching AI. :)
edit - to clarify: UI generated from code/db is fine as a starting point, it's just a rubbish end point.
hey this is not difficult to achieve at all and its not a bad idea at all. it all depends on your project needs. a lot of software products (mind you not projects but products) depend upon this model - so they dont have to rewrite their code / ui logic for different client needs. clients can customize their ui the way they want to using a designer form in the admin system
i have used xml for preserving meta data for this sort of stuff. some of the attributes which i saved for every field were:
friendlyname (label caption)
haspredefinedvalues (yes for drop
down list / multi check box list)
multiselect (if yes then check box
list, if no then drop down list)
datatype
maxlength
required
minvalue
maxvalue
regularexpression
enabled (to show or not to show)
sortkey (order on the web form)
regarding positioning - i did not care much and simply generate table tr td tags 1 below the other - however if you want to implement this as well, you can have 1 more attribute called CssClass where you can define ui specific properties (look and feel, positioning, etc) here
UPDATE: also note a lot of ecommerce products follow this kind of dynamic ui when you want to enter product information - as their clients can be selling everything under the sun from furniture to sex toys ;-) so instead of rewriting their code for every different industry they simply let their clients enter meta data for product attributes via an admin form :-)
i would also recommend you to look at Entity-attribute-value model - it has its own pros and cons but i feel it can be used quite well with your requirements.
In my Opinion there some things you should think about:
Does the customer need a function to customize his UI?
Are there a lot of different attributes or elements?
Is the effort of creating such an "rendering engine" worth it?
Okay, i think that its pretty obvious why you should think about these. It really depends on your project if that kind of model makes sense...
If you want to create some a lot of forms that can be customized at runtime then this model could be pretty uselful. Also, if you need to do a lot of smaller tools and you use this as some kind of "engine" then this effort could be worth it because you can save a lot of time.
With that kind of "rendering engine" you could automatically add error reportings, check the values or add other things that are always build up with the same pattern. But if you have too many of this things, elements or attributes then the performance can go down rapidly.
Another things that becomes interesting in bigger projects is, that changes that have to occur in each form just have to be made in the engine, not in each form. This could save A LOT of time if there is a bug in the finished application.
In our company we use a similar model for an interface generator between cash-software (right now i cant remember the right word for it...) and our application, just that it doesnt create an UI, but an output file for one of the applications.
We use XML to define the structure and how the values need to be converted and so on..
I would say that in most cases the data is not suitable for UI generation. That's why you almost always put a a layer of logic in between to interpret the DB information to the user. Another thing is that when you generate the UI from DB you will end up displaying the inner workings of the system, something that you normally don't want to do.
But it depends on where the DB came from. If it was created to exactly reflect what the users goals of the system is. If the users mental model of what the application should help them with is stored in the DB. Then it might just work. But then you have to start at the users end. If not I suggest you don't go that way.
Can you look on your problem from application architecture perspective? I see you as another database terrorist – trying to solve all by writing stored procedures. Why having UI at all? Try do it in DB script. In effect of such approach – on what composite system you will end up? When system serves different businesses – try modularization, selectively discovered components, restrict sharing references. UI shall be replaceable, independent from business layer. When storing so much data in DB – there is hard dependency of UI – system becomes monolith. How you implement MVVM pattern in scenario when UI is generated? Designers like Blend are containing lots of features, which cannot be replaced by most futuristic UI generator – unless – your development platform is Notepad only.
There is a hybrid approach where forms and all are described in a database to ensure consistency server side, which is then compiled to ensure efficiency client side on deploy.
A real-life example is the enterprise software MS Dynamics AX.
It has a 'Data' database and a 'Model' database.
The 'Model' stores forms, classes, jobs and every artefact the application needs to run.
Deploying the new software structure used to be to dump the model database and initiate a CIL compile (CIL for common intermediate language, something used by Microsoft in .net)
This way is suitable for enterprise-wide software and can handle large customizations. But keep in mind that this approach sets a framework that should be well understood by whoever gonna maintain and customize the application later.
I did this (in PHP / MySQL) to automatically generate sections of a CMS that I was building for a client. It worked OK my main problem was that the code that generates the forms became very opaque and difficult to understand therefore difficult to reuse and modify so I did not reuse it.
Note that the tables followed strict conventions such as naming, etc. which made it possible for the UI to expect particular columns and infer information about the naming of the columns and tables. There is a need for meta information to help the UI display the data.
Generally it can work however the thing is if your UI just mirrors the database then maybe there is lots of room to improve. A good UI should do much more than mirror a database, it should be built around human interaction patterns and preferences, not around the database structure.
So basically if you want to be cheap and do a quick-and-dirty interface which mirrors your DB then go for it. The main challenge would be to find good quality code that can do this or write it yourself.
From my perspective, it was always a problem to change edit forms when a very simple change was needed in a table structure.
I always had the feeling we have to spend too much time on rewriting the CRUD forms instead of developing the useful stuff, like processing / reporting / analyzing data, giving alerts for decisions etc...
For this reason, I made long time ago a code generator. So, it become easier to re-generate the forms with a simple restriction: to keep the CSS classes names. Simply like this!
UI was always based on a very "standard" code, controlled by a custom CSS.
Whenever I needed to change database structure, so update an edit form, I had to re-generate the code and redeploy.
One disadvantage I noticed was about the changes (customizations, improvements etc.) done on the previous generated code, which are lost when you re-generate it.
But anyway, the advantage of having a lot of work done by the code-generator was great!
I initially did it for the 2000s Microsoft ASP (Active Server Pages) & Microsoft SQL Server... so, when that technology was replaced by .NET, my code-generator become obsoleted.
I made something similar for PHP but I never finished it...
Anyway, from small experiments I found that generating code ON THE FLY can be way more helpful (and this approach does not exclude the SAVED generated code): no worries about changing database etc.
So, the next step was to create something that I am very proud to show here, and I think it is one nice resolution for the issue raised in this thread.
I would start with applicable use cases: https://data-seed.tech/usecases.php.
I worked to add details on how to use, but if something is still missing please let me know here!
You can change database structure, and with no line of code you can start edit data, and more like this, you have available an API for CRUD operations.
I am still a fan of the "code-generator" approach, and I think it is just a flavor of using XML/XSLT that I used for DATA-SEED. I plan to add code-generator functionalities.
Related
A simple billing system (on top of ColdBox MVC) is ballooning into a semi-enterprisey inventory + provisioning + issue-tracking + profit tracking app. They seem to be doing their own thing yet they share many things including a common pool of Clients and Staff (login's), and other intermingled data & business logic.
How do you keep such system modular? from a maintenance, testability & re-usability stand point?
single monolithic app? (i.e. new package for the base app)
ColdBox module? not sure how to make it 'installable' and what benefits does it bring yet.
Java Portlet? no idea, just thinking outside the box
SOA architecture? through webservice API calls?
Any idea and/or experience you'd like to share?
I would recommend you break the app into modular pieces using ColdBox Modules. You can also investigate on separate business logic into a RESTful ColdBox layer also and joining the system that way also. Again, it all depends on your requirements and needs at the moment.
Modules are designed to break monolithic applications into more manageable parts that can be standalone or coupled together.
Stop thinking about technology (e.g. Java Portals, ColdBox modules, etc...) and focus on architecture. By this I mean imagining how you can explain your system to an observer. Start by drawing a set of boxes on a whiteboard that represent each piece - inventory, clients, issue tracking, etc... - and then use lines to show interactions between those systems. This focuses you on a separation of concerns, that is grouping together like functionality. To start don't worry about the UI, instead focus on algorithms and data.
If you we're talking about MVC, that step is focusing on the model. With that activity complete comes the hard part, modifying code to conform to that diagram (i.e the model). To really understand what this model should look like I suggest reading Domain Driven Design by Eric Evans. The goal is arriving at a model whose relationships are manageable via dependency injection. Presumably this leaves you with a set of high level CFCs - services if you will - with underlying business entities and persistence management. Their relationships are best managed by some sort of bean container / service locator, of which I believe ColdBox has its own, another example is ColdSpring.
The upshot of this effort is a model that's unit testable. Independent of of the user interface. If all of this is confusing I'd suggest taking a look at Working Effectively with Legacy Code for some ideas on how to make this transition.
Once you have this in place it's now possible to think about a controller (e.g. ColdBox) and linking the model to views through it. However, study whatever controller carefully and choose it because of some capability it brings to the table that your application needs (caching is an example that comes to mind). Your views will likely need to be reimagined as well to interact with this new design, but what you should have is a system where the algorithms are now divorced from the UI, making the views' job easy.
Realistically, the way you tackle this problem is iteratively. Find one system that can easily be teased out in the fashion I describe, get it under unit tests, validate with people as well, and continue to the next system. While a tedious process, I can assure it's much less work than trying to rewrite everything, which invites disaster unless you have a very good set of automated validation ahead of time.
Update
To reiterate, the tech is not going to solve your problem. Continued iteration toward more cohesive objects will.
Now as far as coupled data, with an ORM you've made a tradeoff, and monolithic systems do have their benefits. Another approach would be giving one stateful entity a reference to another's service object via DI, such that you retrieve it through that. This would enable you to mock it for the purpose of unit testing and replace it with a similar service object and corresponding entity to facilitate reuse in other contexts.
In terms of solving business problems (e.g. accounting) reuse is an emergent property where you write multiple systems that do roughly the same thing and then figure out how to generalize. Rarely if ever in my experience do you start out writing something to solve some business problem that becomes a reusable component.
I'd suggest you invest some time in looking at Modules. It will help with partitioning your code into logical features whilst retaining the integration with the Model.
Being ColdBox there is loads of doc's and examples...
http://wiki.coldbox.org/wiki/Modules.cfm
http://experts.adobeconnect.com/p21086674/
You need to get rid of the MVC and replace it with an SOA architecture that way the only thing joining the two halves are the service requests.
So on the server side you have the DAO and FACADE layers. And the client side can be an MVC or what ever architecture you want to use sitting somewhere else. You can even have an individual client for each distinct business.
Even for the server side you can break the project down into multiple servers: what's common between all businesses and then what's distinct between all of them.
The problem we're facing here luckily isn't unique.
The issue here seems not to be the code itself, or how to break it apart, but rather to understand that you're now into ERP design and development.
Knowing how best to develop and grow an ERP which manages the details of this organization in a logical manner is the deeper question I think you're trying to get at. The design and architecture itself of how to code from this flows from an understanding of the core functional areas you need.
Luckily we can study some existing ERP systems you can get a hold of to see how they tackled some of the problems. There's a few good open source ERP's, and what brought this tip to my mind is a full cycle install of SAP Business One I oversaw (a small-mid size ERP that bypasses the challenges of the big SAP).
What you're looking for is seeing how others are solving the same ERP architecture you're facing. At the very least you'll get an idea of the tradeoffs between modularization, where to draw the line between modules and why.
Typically an ERP system handles everything from the quote, to production (if required), to billing, shipping, and the resulting accounting work all the way through out.
ERPS handle two main worlds:
Production of goods
Delivery of service
Some businesses are widget factories, others are service businesses. A full featured out of the box ERP will have one continuous chain/lifecycle of an "order" which gets serviced by a number of steps.
If we read a rough list of the steps an ERP can cover, you'll see the ones that apply to you. Those are probably the modules you have or should be breaking your app into. Imagine the following steps where each is a different document, all connected to the previous one in the chain.
Lead Generation --> Sales Opportunities
Sales Opportunities --> Quote/Estimate
Quote Estimate --> Sales Order
Sales Order --> Production Order (Build it, or schedule someone to do the work)
Production order --> Purchase orders (Order required materials or specialists to arrive when needed)
Production Order --> Production Scheduling (What will be built, when, or Who will get this done, when?)
Production Schedule --> Produce! (Do the work)
Produced Service/Good --> Inventory Adjustments - Convert any raw inventory to finished goods if needed, or get it ready to ship
Finished Good/Service --> Packing Slip
Packing Slip items --> Invoice
Where system integrators come in is using the steps required, and skipping over the ones that aren't used. This leads to one thing for your growing app:
Get a solid data security strategy in place. Make sure you're confortable that everyone can only see what they should. Assuming that is in place, it's a good idea to break apart the app into it's major sections. Modules are our friends. The order to break them up in, however, will likely have a larger effect on what you do than anything.
See which sections are general, (reporting, etc) that could be re-used between multiple apps, and which are more specialized to the application itself. The features that are tied to the application itself will likely be more tightly coupled already and you may have to work around that.
For an ERP, I have always preferred a transactional "core" module, which all the other transaction providers (billing pushing the process along once it is defined).
When I converted a Lotus Notes ERP from the 90's to the SAP ERP, the Lotus Notes app was excellent, it handled everything as it should. THere were some mini-apps built on the side that weren't integrated as modules which was the main reason to get rid of it.
If you re-wrote the app today, with today's requirements, how would you have done it differently? See if there's any major differences from what you have. Let the app fight for your attention to decide what needs overhauling / modularization first. ColdBox is wonderful for modularization, whether you're using plugin type modules or just using well separated code you won't go wrong with it, it's just a function of developer time and money available to get it done.
The first modules I'd build / automate unit testing on are the most complex programatically. Chances are if you're a decent dev, you don't need end to end unit testing as of yesterday. Start with the most complex, move onto the core parts of the app, and then spread into any other areas that may keep you up at night.
Hope that helped! Share what you end up doing if you don't mind, if anything I mentioned needs further explanation hit me up on here or twitter :)
#JasPanesar
I am trying to learn how to use BDD for our development process and I sometimes end-up writing things that implies a UI design, so for brand new development or new features, the UI does not always exists.
For example, if I say this in a scenario "When a column header is clicked" it implies that this feature is based on some sort of table or grid, but at this point we are still just writing user-stories so there is no UI yet.
That gets me confused to know at what point in the process do we come up with a UI design ?
Keep in mind, I only have read articles about BDD and I think it would help our team a lot but still very new at this! Thx!
If you write your scenarios with a focus on the capabilities of the system, you'll be able to refactor the underlying steps within those scenarios more easily. It keeps them flexible. So I'd ask - what does clicking the column get for you? Are you selecting something? What are you going to do with the selection? Are you searching for something and sorting by a value?
I like to see scenarios which say things like:
When I look for the entry
When I go to the diary for January
When I look at the newest entries
When I look at the same T-shirt in black
These could all involve clicking on a column header, but the implementation detail doesn't matter. It's the capability of the system.
Beneath these high-level scenarios and steps I like to create a screen or page with the smaller steps like clicking buttons in it. This makes it easy to refactor.
I wrote this in a DSL rather than English, but it works with the same idea - you can't tell from the steps whether it's a GUI or a web page, and some of the steps involve multiple UI actions:
http://code.google.com/p/wipflash/source/browse/Example.PetShop.Scenarios/PetRegistrationAndPurchase.cs
Hope you find it interesting and maybe it helps. Good luck!
I guess you can write around that by saying "when I sort the information by X, then..." But then you would have to adjust your scenario to remove any mention of the data being displayed in a grid format, which could lead to some rather obtuse writing.
I think it's a good idea to start with UI design as soon as you possibly can. In the case you mentioned above, I think it would be perfectly valid to augment the user story with sketch of the relevant UI as you would imagine it, and then refine it as you go along. A pencil sketch on a piece of paper should be fine. Or you could use a tablet and SketchBook Pro if you want something all digital.
My point is that I don't see a real reason for the UI design to be left out of user stories. You probably already know that you're going to build a Windows, WPF, or Web application. And it's safe to assume that when you want to display tabular data, you'll be using a grid. Keeping these assumptions out of the requirements obfuscates them without adding any real value.
User stories benefit from the fact, that you describe concrete interactions and once you know concrete data and behaviour of the system for it, you might as well add more information about the way you interact. This allows you to use some tools like Cucumber, which with Selenium enables you to translate a story to a test. You might go even further and e.g. for web apps capture all pages you start concrete story at and collect all interactions with that page resulting in some sort of information architecture you might use for documentation or prototyping and later UI testing.
On the other hand, this makes your stories somewhat brittle when it comes to UI changes. I think the agile way of thinking about this is same as when it comes to design changes - do not design for the future, do the simplest possible thing, in the future you might need to change it anyway.
If you stripped your user stories of all concrete things (even inputs) you will end up with use cases(at least in their simplest format, depends on how you write your stories). Use cases are in this respect not brittle at all, they specify only goals. This makes them resistant to change, but its harder to transfer information automatically using tools.
As for the process, RUP/UP derives UI from use cases, but I think agile is in its nature incremental (I will not say iterative, this would exclude agile methods like FDD and Kanban). This means, as you implement new story, you add to your UI what is necessary. This only makes adding UI specifics in stories more reasonable. The problem is, that this is not a very good way to create UI or more generally UX(user experience). This is exactly what one might call a weakpoint of agile. The Agile manifesto concentrates on functional software, but that is it. There are as far as I know no agile techniques for designing UI or UX.
I think you just need to step back a bit.
BAD: When I click the column header, the rows get sorted by the column I clicked.
GOOD: Then I sort the rows by name, or sometimes by ZIP code if the name is very common, like "Smith".
A user story / workflow is a sequence of what the user wants to achieve, not a sequence of actions how he achieves that. You are collecting the What's so you can determine the best How's for all users and use cases.
Looking at a singular aspect of your post:
if I say this in a scenario "When a column header is clicked" it implies that this feature is based on some sort of table or grid, but at this point we are still just writing user-stories so there is no UI yet.
If this came from a user, not from you, it would show a hidden expectation that there actually is a table or grid with column headers. Even coming from you it's not entirely without value, as you might be a user, too. It might be short-sighted, thinking of a grid just because it comes from an SQL query, or it might be spot-on because it's the presentation you expect the data in. A creative UI isnÄt a bad thing as such, but ignoring user expectations is.
Currently I'm doing a project whose specifications are unclear - well who doesn't. I wonder what's the best development strategy to design a DB, that's going to be extended sooner or later with additional tables and relations. I want to include "changeability".
My main concern is that I want to apply design patterns (it's a university project) and I want to separate the constant factors from those, that change by choosing appropriate design patterns - in my case MVC and a set of sub-patterns at model level.
When it comes to the DB however, I may have to resdesign my model in my MVC approach, because my domain model at a later stage my require a different set of classes representing the DB tables. I use Hibernate as an abstraction layer between DB and application.
Would you start with a very minimal DB, just a few tables and relations? And what if I want an efficient DB, too? I wonder what strategies are applied in the real world. Stakeholder analysis for example isn't a sufficient planing solution when it comes to changing requirements. I think - at a DB level - my design pattern ends. So there's breach whose impact I'd like to minimize with a smart strategy.
In unclear situations I prefer a minimalistic DB design, supporting the needs known right now. My experience is that any effort to be clever, to model for future needs makes the model more complex. When the new needs arise, they are often in unforseen areas. The extra modeling for future needs doesn't fit the new needs, but rather makes the needed refactoring even harder.
As you already have chosen Hibernate to be able to decouple the DB design and the OO model, I think that sticking with an as simple DB as possible is a good choice.
What you describe is typical for almost every project. There are a few things you can do however.
Try to isolate the concepts (not their realizations) of your problem domain. Remember: Extending a data model is almost always easy (add a new table, a new column etc.) but changing your data model is hard and requires data migration.
I advocate using an Agile development process: Implement only what you need right now, but make sure you understand the complete problem before modeling it.
Another thing you should check before starting to hack away your code is wether your chosen infrastructure is appropriate. Using a relational database when you want to change your schema's very often is usually a bad match. Document databases are schema-less and hence more flexible. I think you should evaluate wether using a relational database is really appropriate for you application.
"Currently I'm doing a project whose specifications are unclear"
Given the 'database' tag, I assume you are asking this question in a database context.
Remember that a database is a set of ASSERTIONS OF FACT (capitalization intended).
If it is unclear what kind of "assertions of fact" your user wants to be registered by the database, then you simply cannot define (the structure of) your database.
And you will be helping both yourself and your user by first trying to clear out everything that is unclear.
In a simple answer: BE MINIMALISTIC.
Try to figure out the main entities. Don´t worry about the properties, you will fill them later. Then, create the relations between the entities. Create a test application using wour favorite ORM (Hibernate?), build some unit tests, and voilà, you have your minimal DB operational. :)
No project begins with requirements entirely known and fixed for all time. Use an agile, iterative approach to the database design so you that you can accommodate change during development.
All database designs are extensible and subject to change during their lifetime. Don't try to avoid change. Just make sure you have the right people and processes in place to manage change effectively when it happens.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I ask about the pattern, not framework. This is kind of follow-up to a question on UI auto-generation.
Do you believe in the concept of UI auto-generation from metadata?
What kind of problems can be approached this way?
The question arose when I've created a small library to support my student projects, which generates interactive CLI in runtime based on object's metadata. And I think CLI it generates is quite decent.
On the other extreme is the Naked Objects Framework, which is rather universal, but UI it generates is horrible, IMO.
It's clear, every problem is specific and needs specific UI, but maybe there are several classes of problems where auto-generation is acceptable?
Yes, I believe the concept of metadata-based auto-generated applications is very sound - mainly because it drastically reduces development time and improves code quality by reducing the massive redundancy you have in most applications where each domain data field is represented in the database, in the model, in the UI, and often also several times in various mapping layers.
I think the future is auto-generated apps that can be modified wherever necessary. Currently, this is AFAIK not really possible; for example, Rails only allows you to fully customize the UI when you use static scaffolding, which basically means code generation, i.e. many further changes in the domain model are then not automatically represented in the UI because the duplication has happened when the code was generated.
I believe the first framework that manages to combine complete auto-generation with complete modifiability afterwards will become the de-facto development standard to a previously unknown degree. Though most likely we'll get there in small steps so that there will not be such a single dominating framework.
Take a look at JMatter, which is a rather better-looking implementation of Naked Objects.
http://www.jmatter.org
There is also Chris Muller's work on MAUI, and Lukas Renggli's work on Magritte (both Squeak /Smalltalk)
We have lots of generated UI in the configuration part of our apps. All those lists that are around forever and changed once in a blue moon by a system administrator.
I find that most applications with a database back-end tend to have a bad design from an OO and NO perspective, as already shown in the NO book by Pawson and Matthews.
Re: qn #1 ... Do you believe in the concept of UI auto-generation from metadata? ... I'm definitely going to answer 'yes' to your first question, being one of the committers to the Naked Objects (Java) framework and writing a book on DDD + NO.
The question mentions metadata. I think this is key to NO being able to succeed. In the latest version (which will be going beta in Feb) the metamodel has been opened up so that it is very extensible, either so you can write your domain model following your own programming conventions/annotations, or, potentially so that more sophisticated viewers can look for their own metadata to provide more sophisticated views. (For example, consider that if an object implemented a Location interface then it is displayed in a google maps).
Regarding qn #2 ... what kind of problems can be approached this way ... we've always said that NO is more suitable for "sovereign applications" (transactional, operational systems ones used internally within an organization) to "transient applications" (like an airport kiosk, say). An NO GUI does require that the user is familiar with the domain, otherwise they won't know what they are looking at.
What's missing still is sophisticated viewers, of course. You are right about the NO GUI, it is definitely low fidelity (though the .NET version is a big improvement, see recent infoq.com article). On the Java side there is a sister project called scimpi.org that has a lot of promise though... it provides a basic web GUI for free but lets you hand-craft web pages as necessary and incrementally. I'm also working on an Eclipse RCP GUI that'll work similarly.
The other thing to add to this though is that the NO approach has value (I believe) even if you choose to write a custom GUI and/or presentation layer. That is, you can use it as a design tool for building a very solid pojo domain layer, and then skin it as you will. Trouble is that NO was never originally sold in those terms, so most will see the NO pattern as an all-or-nothing affair.
Dan
One way to look at this is to consider the difference between the user interface you get from something like Toad or MySQL Browser, where the user interface is directly constructed from the tables and their associated meta data, and the user interface that a skilled designer would develop for the actual application. IF there not too disimilar then it should be fairly low hanging fruit for an auto-generation framework.
As you say there are classes of problems which will work quite well with this kind of auto generation and some which wouldn't. To my mind the key things are how well the implementation model (or portion thereof) which you are exposing in the user interface maps to the conceptual model of the user. Secondly how well can the behavior of the application can be expressed through a limited set of user interface components (assuming this is a general purpose UI generation framework).
This article "Universal Model of a User Interface" may be of interest .
I think the idea of automatically generated UIs has a lot of potential especially for your average form-and-table layout database user interface. However, even there a human needs to be in the loop, having the ability to override the output without it being overwritten with the next regeneration.
I suspect automatically generated UIs would be more successful today if interaction designers were more involved in developing the generation algorithms. My impression is that historically the creators of these systems don’t know what kinds of UI-related metadata to include or how to use it. Specifying labels, value ranges, formats, and orders for fields is a start, but more high level information is needed. Sufficient modeling of the tasks and user roles in particular tends to be lacking, along with some basic style-guide-level principles for UI.
Oracle’s Designer 2000, for example, was on the right track in including not only the entities and relations in the model, but also the tasks in the form of a functional hierarchy. Then they blew it by misapplying this metadata (e.g., assuming that depth is always preferred to breadth) and including fundamental flaws when generating the UI (e.g., only one primary window can be opened at a time). The result was IUs that were not even consistent with Oracle’s own Applications User Interface Standards.
Getting a basic UI up quickly that lets the customer try out the system and create test data must be of value. Naked Objects frameworks can help for the “boot strapping” even if you have to have replace it with “hand crafted” UI before you ship.
In most system I have worked on, there have been lots of simple housekeeping tables. All these tables need a UI to edit and view them etc. There is also great value in these simple editors being consistent. Here a naked Objects framework could save a lot of time, even if the main “day to day” UI is “hand crafted”
I have seen a couple of failed projects (cases where I was brought in as a rather expensive consultant to help architect the replacement) which used the "naked objects" approach (not the framework, AFAIK) - all with simply atrocious UIs, and worked replacing a lot of the UI on one project which, in its original incarnation, had a similar approach (the entire application was a tree of objects accessed through context menus and property sheets - this was NetBeans 2.0 circa 1998 - IDE as a giant hierarchical JavaBean).
The bottom line is, your users don't care about your architecture, they care about getting what they need to do done in the most comprehensible-to-mere-mortals set of interactions you can come up with. If that happens to align with your architecture, you are having a lucky day - but it really is serendipity. Trying to force users to care (or even know) about your architecture is a recipe for software nobody wants to use.
Code generally needs to be designed around two not-always-compatible goals:
Maintainability - people who didn't write the code can understand the code
Stability and performance - i.e. the activities the code asks the computer to physically do are both possible, and can be completed within a reasonable time frame
The abstractions and code structures that it makes sense to create to meet those two goals very, very rarely map exactly to user interface elements of any sort. Sometimes you can get away with it - barely - if your audience is technical. But even there, you are likely to please more users with at least a "presentation layer" adapter layer on top of the architecture that makes sense for programmers and machines.
How do you like your CRUD programs. Code-generated, framework-driven, or manually written?
My experience with code generators is that they're a good start but after the changes have settled down I usually want to rewrite the modules by hand. Of course, that can become a maintenance problem. But it really turns into a "how long is a piece of rope" question. Which generators, frameworks, and resources are you dealing with? Some of them are horrors to deal with, others work all right.
I like code generators with custom templates for the following reasons:
Reduces coding effort
Easy to make global changes
Embed architecture in templates ensures developer compliance.
Less chance of coding errors.
Consistent functionality
Less to test.
In fact, using code generators I was able to create, or recreate, the store procedures, entity classes, and DAL from a modified database with 60+ tables in minutes when the schema was updated. By using custom templates, I was ensured that the all layers worked with my naming rules and ensured proper error handling and prevention of double insertion.
Great for fixed price contracts. If it is hourly, then you might want to do it by hand :-)
I like a mixture of framework driven and manually written. I've done a little bit with NHibernate and LinqtoSql and sometimes the queries they generate for me need a little bit of help.
This really depends on the size of your application. Hand-crafted Data Access Layers make the most sense for a very small application as you have ultimate control but for any medium to large size application I would recommend a code generator. I've had various experience with APEX SQL (not great), LINQ and Subsonic (both very good). I'm just about to evaluate a Telerik ORM shortly but I imagine that will be pretty good also.
If you use .Net use Linq, then it is easy to maintain. LinqToSql makes it easy to update your data model with out having to change the code a whole lot.
In my opinion code generators are a sign of bad design and violate DRY. Where as a good framework will have you maintaining less code. With frameworks you also end up extending and refactoring code rather than a code template.
Frameworks are choice one, if I need to use a code generator I like to throw together a quick Perl script that generates the code so I understand exactly what is getting generated and why.
They are useful if you view your users as data entry clerks to maintain your database tables for you. They help minimize the programming time required to meet minimum requirements.
If you want the quality of your work to reflect something better than that, the best that can be said for them is they might give you a jumpstart if you're not too sure how to do simple consistent UI screens yourself.
Personally I find that refactoring them into something useful and attractive based on real Use Cases takes longer than doing it from scratch. They're the kind of technique Dilbert's pointy-haired boss would love.
I find a good framework for CRUD logic better than code generators. I have run into situations when a complex set of tables generated a terribly slow query to produce the result.