Hi,
On 3 Apr 2011, at 13:55, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
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 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:
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.
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
Cheers, Alexandre
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"One cannot do more than one can do."