Hi,

This is great. And it looks beautiful. Just, please make the labels gray by default :).

I reviewed the code a bit:

GET2Bar>>diagramClass

^ vertical

ifTrue: [ GET2VerticalBarDiagram ]

ifFalse: [ GET2HorizontalBarDiagram ]

GET2Bar>>horizontal

vertical := false

I think you should change two things. First, you could probably work directly with the diagram instance and not with the diagram class.

Second, instead of working with flags, just instantiate the correct object when you know it. For example:

GET2Bar>>horizontal

diagram := GET2HorizontalBarDiagram new

Also, could you please rename GET2AbstractBuilder to GET2Builder? (abstract does not add much to it)

In any case, I like it a lot that we have a RTBuilder hierarchy for everything related to visualizations. This should probably make it easy for creating fluent interfaces when wrapping in external interfaces like Glamour because the only thing we need to know from outside is to work with the interface from RTBuilder.

One downside for the current implementation of the builders is that there is no distinction between the specification step and the rendering step (they are done in one shot). This makes things simpler now, but it has implications:

- You cannot serialize the view specification object and render it in a different place (this for example, might be interesting for an Amber client and a Pharo server).

- You cannot perform optimizations in the builder or work with things that are not yet defined. For example, in a Mondrian builder the order of defining nodes and edges should not necessarily matter. This should be possible:

view edgesFrom: #superclass.

view nodes: classes.

This is only possible if we decouple the rendering from the specification.

I think it would be worth it for us to spend a bit of time looking at this, but we can also probably do it at a later time.

Doru

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Pablo Estefó <pestefo@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi folks,

I created some builders to ease chart configuration. You can use the previous builder as well but the idea is to have specific builders for specific charts.

Here you have some examples.

=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.

|builder MAX|
     MAX := 8.
     builder := GET2Bar data: ((1 to: 15) collect: [ :v | MAX atRandom - 5 ]).
     builder color: [ :val | |alpha |
          alpha := [ :v | (v abs / MAX) ].
          val positive ifTrue: [ Color blue alpha: (alpha value: val) ]
                             ifFalse: [ Color purple alpha: (alpha value: val) ]
           ].
     builder open
=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.

=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.

| values builder |

     values := #( #(1 3 3) #(3 2 4) #(5 14 5) #(6 10 1) #(7 9 6) #(8 8 9) ).

     builder := GET2Scatterplot data: values.
     builder
          color: (Color purple alpha: 0.5);
          r: [:v | v third * 4].
=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.

I am now fixing the Gofer configuration (for PDF exporting).
I’ll be working on better numbering strategy for axis and horizontal/vertical line guides as background.

Stay tuned :-)

Pablo

On Apr 1, 2014, at 3:27, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:

Yes!

I’ve started to use GraphET to generate figures in my papers. It works relatively well :-)

But yes, we will continue to push it!

Yes!

_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"