6 Apr
2013
6 Apr
'13
12:08 a.m.
Using two nested elements for modeling
"hello" + background is not really clean from a conceptual point of view, but
this should go away once we get a proper way of building complex shapes. Right? :)
"is not really clean " => Well... I would not be that categoric. But yes, a
way to better compose graphical shape is necessary.
Juraj is currently working on this. This is necessary to move forward in getting rid of
Mondrian. So far, he has done the "easy things". We cannot avoid the umlShape
and classBlueprint any longer.
We hope to make a proposal to this mailing list at the beginning of the next week.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Apr 5, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Hi Dennis,
Sorry for my late answer.
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Don't give to get. Just give."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev I looked at the following method:
ROPopup>>createElementFor: element
^ ROElement new
add: (ROElement new
+ ((ROLabel
text: (text roValue: element model)) color: textColor))
+ box copy;
yourself
and noticed some things:
• A ROElement is create inside another. Out of curiosity: why is this necessary?
Look at the following example:
<Screen Shot 2013-04-04 at 8.37.28 PM.png>
The popup shows "hello" in a gray background. There are two elements here. The
gray background and the white text.
• When doing ROElement new, these elements are
NOT added to the same view, the given element is in, thus these elements dont use the same
zOrdering. What view is this? Where is it from and why is it a different one?
You are very right. The two elements are not added in the same view. It took us some time
to come up with that solution. The reason is that you do not want to have the same camera
for the view and the popup. Consider the following example:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| view el stack |
stack := ROViewStack new.
view := ROView new.
el := ROElement on: 123.
el + ROBox.
el @ (ROPopup new receivingView: stack).
el @ RODraggable.
view on: ROMouseClick do: [ :event | ROZoomInMove new on: view ].
view add: el.
stack addView: view.
stack open
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Do a bit of clicking on the background and raise the popup. You get something like:
<Screen Shot 2013-04-05 at 2.34.54 PM.png>
The node is large and the popup has its original size.
Now, if you remove the "receivingView: stack" as in:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| view el stack |
stack := ROViewStack new.
view := ROView new.
el := ROElement on: 123.
el + ROBox.
el @ (ROPopup new).
el @ RODraggable.
view on: ROMouseClick do: [ :event | ROZoomInMove new on: view ].
view add: el.
stack addView: view.
stack open
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You will have a big popup. Rather ugly isn't it?
<Screen Shot 2013-04-05 at 2.36.55 PM.png>
• The created elements will have a zIndex of
zero, since none is set.
To make popups work in the case a view uses ROBasicZOrdering I changed the method in the
following way:
ROPopup>>createElementFor: element
^ (ROElement new view: element view; zIndex: element zIndex + 1; yourself)
add: ((ROElement new view: element view; zIndex: element zIndex + 1; yourself)
+ ((ROLabel
text: (text roValue: element model)) color: textColor))
+ box copy;
yourself
These changes should not affect the normal use case.
I don't know if this is the correct way to do this, or if there are maybe underlaying
issues with zIndex in general which should be adressed first.
What do you think?
If I understand correctly, you want to use the zIndex to always have the popup above the
pointed element. Normally, this is not necessary since the popup is the last in the
drawing queue (since it is added when a MOMouseEnter is raised). However, I see this is
not always the case since you are using zIndexes: you may have elements with a different
zIndex and the popup has still 0 as zIndex.
But why "+1" ? The popup should be above all the other nodes shouldn't it?
It could therefore be 10000 instead no?
I attached the code if you want to merge it in.
I have no problem to include your change, I am just trying to figure out the usage
scenario first.
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev