3 Apr
2011
3 Apr
'11
7:10 p.m.
Hi,
On 3 Apr 2011, at 13:55, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
I do not understand. The Element (I really would call it Figure because it would convey
much better the intention) that has to retain the instance variable. The logic that
depends on the model is in the shape. In the case of bounds it delegates to
Shape>>computeBoundsFor:
It is great to want to simplify a design, but this would only happen if you introduce some
extra concepts (like a Graph). However, this comes at a price, but maybe it is worth it.
Regarding VW vs Pharo, I do not see where the Pharo version is less complex than the VW
version. In fact, with the caching it is slightly more complex.
Cheers,
Doru
Yes. Bounds is
about the bounds of the figure. A Shape object is a strategy and it is shared among
multiple elements. Thus, it cannot hold data specific to one element.
But the question is whether having GraphElement>>bounds make more sense than
MOShape>>boundsFor: I am just wary
about adding more layers if there aren't strong reasons for it. On the other hand, it
can well be that it scales in the end. So, we can experiment but we should be careful to
trace the effects :)
I am just looking for ways to simplify Mondrian. The VW version of Mondrian was complex.
We have simplified it over the years. But it remains complex. 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
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"One cannot do more than one can do."