Moose-dev

moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch

6621 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Jenkins build became unstable: moose-latest-dev #1156

by admin＠moosetechnology.org

See <http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-latest-dev/1156/>

12 years, 6 months

Glamourous Inspector - multiple panes

by Ben Coman

Using a 24" wide screen, it would be useful to be able to configure the Glamourous Inspector [1] to have more than two panes showing at a time. Is that possible? cheers -ben

12 years, 6 months

Re: [Pharo-project] Roassal Survey

by Ben Coman

12 years, 6 months

Issue 850 in moose-technology: GT should offer a setting for the number of panes in the inspector

by moose-technology＠googlecode.com

Status: New Owner: tu...(a)tudorgirba.com Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Component-GlamorousToolkit Milestone-4.7 New issue 850 by tu...(a)tudorgirba.com: GT should offer a setting for the number of panes in the inspector http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=850 We should be able to set the amount of panes visible at one time in the inspector. This is useful when having a large monitor.

12 years, 6 months

Re: [Pharo-project] Roassal Survey

by Tudor Girba

Hi, On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: >>> if you check the sender of #mostSpecificParentCommonWith: then you will see that only the Mondrian builder makes use of it. Currently, and outside the Mondrian DSL, you can insert the edge where you actually want, independently of its extremities. >> >> Is there a reason for this "freedom" in Roassal? > > Simplicity of the code. Currently there is absolutely no optimization or even caches in Roassal. > I have the feeling that this point will be crucial when we will have to address some scalable situations. But, this is not an optimization. Storing edges in reasonable places is about the meaningfulness of the model. Perhaps it makes sense to have it like it is now in Roassal, but I think there should be an explicit reason for it. That is because a graph has essentially two concepts, and if one of them is randomly placed, the model is only 50% sound :). Regarding caches, the original Mondrian had no cache either precisely because we wanted to keep it open. Caches were introduced only very late in the Pharo version because you wanted to make it faster :). It is clear that we learnt that hard and extensive caches impose limitations and I never argued for them. >>> I am wondering whether this is what we really want. Shouldn't the element/node be aware of its attachpoint, instead of its edges? >> >> I think you should have both. There should be a lookup, where the node >> should have the priority over the edge. > > > Probably yes. We tried something like this in Mondrian, but the model was not quite clean. There, even the layout could set the attachment points. It would be cool to rethink this part. Cheers, Doru > Alexandre > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

12 years, 6 months

ROMenuActivable on raw graphic elements

by Ben Coman

I have split this post into two parts since I think any follow up will form two distinct threads. As I am developing using Roassal, I find it useful to Explore the graphic elements from a context menu. To demonstrate I have adapted ROExample>>linesOn: "-------------" "-------------" menu := (ROMenuActivable new) item: 'Explore graphic element' action: [ :model | (rawView elementFromModel: model) explore ]. node1 := ROLabel elementOn: 'node1'. node2 := ROLabel elementOn: 'node2'. node1 @ RODraggable @ menu. node2 @ RODraggable @ menu. "uncomment next three lines for Part Two edge := ROEdge lineFrom: node1 to: node2. edge + (ROLine red). rawView add: edge. " rawView add: node1; add: node2. ROHorizontalLineLayout on: (Array with: node1 with: node2). "-------------" "-------------" Is there (or can there be added) a way to access the graphic element more directly? Something like one of the following two lines... item: 'Explore graphic element' action: [ :model :element | element explore ]. item: 'Explore graphic element' rawAction: [ :element | element explore ].

12 years, 6 months

Interactive Roassal (.5)

by Ben Coman

I have updated my try at a Roassal-Interactive demo (see attached) to the latest ConfigurationOfRoassal (AlexandreBergel.625). This is specifically to make use of the ROMenuActivable change to use graphic elements rather than nodes. I haven't got a home for this yet. Are there any parts of this that might be included under the main Roassal repository (probably under a separate Configuration due to the dependency on Glamour), or should a start a separate repository? Also are there any parts (especially the extensions to the Roassal-Glamour interface) that might get into mainline - or do you see other ways of achieving this.) cheers -ben

12 years, 6 months

Re: Status of PetitDelphi, a first visualization

by Stephan Eggermont

Alexandre wrote: > Looks good! > Using Roassal will give you some zooming in/out and a find button. > Quite useful :-) Yes, Roassal is definitely on the radar. The demo project is rather large, and zooming will be needed as soon as we add more information. Stephan

12 years, 6 months

Metrics about Moose itself

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Hi guys. Let's say I need to know how "large" Moose is. I want an approx. number of classes, package, and total LOC. I can take the default Moose distribution (one-click). Of course I only want to take into account only Moose packages (and its dependencies), but not Pharo itself. I could do it...but it may take some time.. maybe someone already did it. anyone? Thanks, -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

12 years, 6 months

[Fwd: Re: [Pharo-project] Roassal Survey]

by Ben Coman

moved to moose-dev Ciprian, Thanks for your detailed reply. Some comments inline... Ciprian Teodorov wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Sorry for the delay, I was very bussy these last few days. Attached to this > mail you will find some drawings showing what I mean. > > The first attachement [1] show the two most important graph concepts that > are needed for circuit design: the support for hyper-edges, and the ports > crossing hierarchical nodes. > The hyper-edges are useful to represent physical wires (which are connected > to a source, and then provide input to a number of sinks). > hyper-edges: Can you comment on how close Roassal Easel > #ROMondrianExample > #edges > orthoVerticalLine comes to your need for hyper-edges. Try arranging the nodes in various configurations. Note however... that where you have three "ortho" segments making up an edge and it looks like the first segment is shared by all edges, actually each edge has three segments each and the first segments are being drawn over the top of each other. Would that be significant? > The hierarchical crossings can be thought as the physical pins of an > integrated circuit, that are plugged into a socket in order to integrate > that circuit into a system. > hierarchical-crossing: Check out Roassal Easel > #ROMondrianExample > #edges > attachPoint. Also look at the coding of ROAttachPoint and subclasses, and in particular ROShorterDistanceAttachPoint>>fourFromPointsOfEdge: and >>fourToPointsOfEdge:. I think the way this has been done is quite elegant and building on these to create hierarchical-crossings might not be too hard. You might try it. Perhaps these might be called ROOuterAttachPoint and ROInnerAttachPoint and would respectively check to see if the connecting element is a contained sub-element. Alexandre, I think this example shows what I was badly hinting at with my "ROElement>>mostSpecificParentCommonWith:" thread. This used to decide which level within a hierarchy of sub-element edges are stored. Referring to the first attachement of Cipirian's post "Figure 2(a)", I think in this case the "inner" edges should be stored as part of the "Composite" element, but I think currently they would be stored in the parent of "Composite". Also I had been thinking for a while that it would be nice to be able to have AttachPoints rendered - both as permanently-visible and also visible-on-hover-only, so that when I re-implement the edge rubber-banding to interactive draw lines between elements (which I demoed to you a while ago on Mondrian) the user could drop the edge-end onto a specific AttachPoint. > The second, and third attachement are the same (only the format differs pdf > vs png). They show a detailed example of the hierarchical structure that I > imagine. The main elements of this graphs are: the leaf nodes, the edges, > the hierarchical nodes, the pins, and the ports. > The leaf nodes are just the typical graph nodes. The edges are just links > between nodes. > The hierarchical nodes are graphs themselves, but they can be connected one > to another using edges. However these connections between hierarchical > nodes are done through the pins present on their interface. If such a > hierarchical node wants to be connected to the exterior it has to have pins > so that the layout algorithm can be constrained to route the edges to these > pins (which can be either free or have fixed positions). > The ports in my figure are just ways to group together a number of pins. > > In the figure you will see three graphs (corresponding to three views on > the leftmost graph). > The first one (on the left) just represents the top-level graph with all > hierarchical nodes collapsed. This graph itself has a number of ports so > that it can be embedded in another one. > The second one (in the middle) shows an expanded view of the central > hierarchical node in the top-level graph. This one is expanded into another > view. > The third one (in the right) shows yet another expanded view, this time of > a node in the middle graph. This last graph contains two hierarchical nodes > itself that are expanded in place. > > Now the idea of edges crossing hierarchy boundaries through pins is that > the inner-most hierarchical nodes can be layed out separately and then > collapsed, their containers can be layed out just like a simple graph (in > the case their nodes are collapsed). However if one node is a hierarchical > one, and is expanded, the layout algorithm does not have to layout the > contents inside this hierarchical node, it just layouts the whole graph > considering the pins as fixed nodes to which it will route the links. This > way when expanded the hierarchical nodes retain their initial layout, > moreover this initial layout takes into account the fact that the node will > be embedded into a larger graph and thus it will place the pins on the > boundary. > What do you think of Roassal Easel > Examples > ROExample > #interaction > zooming and ROExample > #interaction > expandableNodesOn: ? > FYI the graphs shown in the last two attachements where automatically > generated from a circuit design, they were imported into the Yed diagram > editor, one by one, layed out semi-automatically (used force-based layout > initially, an then moved a number of nodes manually to align them well - ex > the straight edges were obtained by manually moving the nodes). Just > imagine how boring this process is. Moreover since I had to represent the > pins, and the ports just as plain graph nodes grouped together the layout > algorithms don't have any idea that these nodes are special, thus they > place them everywhere, even more if the groups are expanded their inner > nodes are layouted along with the embedding hierarchy... resulting in a > mess. > > Cheers, > Ciprian > * > * > *References:* > [1] Miro Sponemann, Hauke Fuhrmann, Reinhard von Hanxleden, and Petra > Mutzel. > Port constraints in hierarchical layout of data > flow<http://rtsys.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~biblio/downloads/papers/gd09.pdf> > diagrams<http://rtsys.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~biblio/downloads/papers/gd09.pdf> > . > In David Eppstein and Emden Gansner, editors, Graph Drawing, volume 5849 of > Lecture Notes in Computer Science, chapter 14. > Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010. > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > >> Ciprian Teodorov wrote: >> >> >>> Another feature that I think it is missing in most (if not all) graph >>> viewers/layout systems/editors is the possibility to have connection ports >>> on the hierarchical nodes in order to preserve the connections passing >>> through the hierarchy. >>> >>> some pointers: >>> >>> http://www.slideshare.net/**teodorov/tools-and-**crossbarbased-nanocmos-* >>> *architectures<http://www.slideshare.net/teodorov/tools-and-crossbarbased-nanocmos-archite…> >>> >>> http://stiff.univ-brest.fr/~**cteodorov/manuscript-teodorov_**FINAL.pdf<http://stiff.univ-brest.fr/~cteodorov/manuscript-teodorov_FINAL.pdf> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Ciprian Teodorov >>> >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2012 6:16 PM, "Vanessa Peña Araya" <van.c.pena(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Ciprian, >> >> I have skimmed through those links but can't quite understand your comment >> "in order to preserve the connections passing through the hierarchy" Can >> you expand some more on that - perhaps with a mock up in a paint program? >> >> If you are interested in following the development of Roassal, perhaps >> move your follow up to https://www.iam.unibe.ch/** >> mailman/listinfo/moose-dev<https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev>. >> <https://www.iam.unibe.ch/**mailman/listinfo/moose-dev<https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev> >> >> I have been very encouraged by the clean architecture and the >> responsiveness of the main developers to feature suggestions. >> >> cheers, Ben >> >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >

12 years, 6 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Moose-dev