5 May
2010
5 May
'10
11:47 a.m.
Hi,
On 5 May 2010, at 11:30, Simon Denier wrote:
In my opinion there are too many interests in this package already.
On 5 mai 2010, at 10:22, Tudor Girba wrote:
Ok, for me MondrianScripts should go in MondrianPaintings
Hi,
MondrianPaintings holds Mondrian views which are typically 2-3
methods each. Distribution Map, with all the Wizard and other
computations is more than that, so I think it deserves a package on
its own :)
I think like that for MondrianScripts, which are often class
extensions, but not for MondrianPaintings which often holds multiple
classes for the same application. Then CycleTable, LayerTable, and
PackageBlueprints have comparable size to DistributionMap. But I
like the fact that they all appear together in the browser.
Actually, I do not like categories :). I prefer to have packages
for everything.
Well packages are for distribution, categories for internal
organization (so I don't mind them if this is built this way). It
makes sense to have multiple packages when:
- you end up with too many merges due to co-evolution of unrelated
things within a single package (I don't feel we don't have this
problem right now with Moose-MondrianPaintings) - you have independent applications mixed with
Moose-dependent
applications: we could put DistributionMap, CycleTable, LayerTable
in MondrianPaintings (so the one from Mondrian, not Moose-...) since
they do not depend on Famix at all. But then we have to take care of
new dependencies for Mondrian (like Merlin)
The DistributionMap Wizard depends on Moose and on Fame not just on
Merlin, so they do not belong in Mondrian.
But, indeed I think that the DistributionMap visualization engine and
the other ones could belong to Mondrian as a layer on top.
In that case, the Distribution Map Wizard would be packaged in Moose-
DistributionMap.
What I am sure of is that I want to move MondrianScripts into
MondrianPaintings, because the name is better.
Cheers,
Doru
Does it sound right?
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
Cheers,
Doru
On 4 May 2010, at 16:38, Simon Denier wrote:
--
Simon
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
On 4 mai 2010, at 10:36, Tudor Girba wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every now and then stop and ask yourself if the war you're
fighting is the right one."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Hi Cyrille,
I have a bit of feedback for Distribution Map:
- The computation from Distribution Map Wizard is too expensive
because you iterate over the meta elements and for each of them
you go over all elements of Moose through the method
includesElementsOfType:
It would be better if you would go over all cached groups and
decide based on that rather than traversing the entire entities
collection (which can be millions of objects).
- It would be better if Distribution Map gets its own package
because it starts to be large
What does large mean in this context? I mean, I don't understand
the benefit of creating a single package for DistributionMap while
all others are under MondrianPaintings (within their own categories)
--
Simon
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev