On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm...
right now I have one burning question:
Why build a completely new layer of indirection with different API
instead of improving and extending Roassal (=Telescope alongside Roassal
instead of on top of it)? It seems like a lot of effort went into creating
it while it would have had bigger and better impact in Roassal...
So, how do you tell builder that you want to color or add interaction to
> a "group" of nodes and not all the
nodes in the visu? Groups are
> first-class entities in Telescope. Composites are first class entities with
> customizable interactions.
>
> Roassal has RTGroup, which is obviously less powerful, but often
enough. Plus
the
"if node matches this add/change/do this" that is also implemented by
Telescope.
Moreover, the model takes care of updating only
the concerned nodes and
> not all of the visualization.
>
> Roassal updates only what should be updated, not the whole
visualization. (And
if some particular builder does rerender everything,
that's the builder's problem.) After all this is transitive --- if
Telescope can do partial changes and is on top of Roassal, so can Roassal
do it...
The paper is not the best way to see what
Telescope is able to.
>>
>> Look at the demos and the presentation Anne did at Esug:
>>
http://www.slideshare.net/GuillaumeLarcheveque/telescope-introduction-and-e…
>>
>> I saw the presentation at ESUG but I wanted more insight (or
documentation)...
Anyway, I'll continue my exploration... but the idea that I might need
interaction between Telescope and Roassal elements and concepts doesn't
make me happy...
Peter
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch