24 Mar
2014
24 Mar
'14
2:12 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote:
Usman Bhatti wrote:
You could always ask for the under-lying ROView for ROMondrianView with:
mondrianBuilder raw.
Hello,
Is there any particular reason for GLMRoassal2Presentation working with
RTView instead of RTMondrianViewBuilder i.e. in the painting block, we get
RTView object instead of the builder.
I am asking this question because the predecessor,
GLMRoassalPresentation, used to work with ROMondrianViewBuilder. Now, when
we'll move our visualizations to work with Roassal2 in Glamour we'll have
to make major modifications to the source code because the level of details
with RTView and RTMondrianViewBuilder is not the same.
Usman
I've been distracted for a while tackling Pharo 3 bugs leading up to
release, but I very pleased to hear of this change. As someone who was
using Roassal1 with Glamour sans Mondrian, it was painful and awkward to
get a raw ROView without the stuff that Mondrian adds to it. I eventually
found a work around that I think got integrated, but it was a bit of a
hack.
For a long while, it seemed to me that Roassal did not have an independent
identity separate from Mondrian. References to Mondrian and Roassal seemed
often used interchangeably. Some mixed concerns were understandable since
Roassal was (I believe) initially designed to provide an abstraction layer
under the Mondrian API. However as Roassal finds broader use beyond
Mondrian, things like GLMRoassalPresentation need to be separated from
Mondrian. However perhaps there needs to be a new GLMMondrianPresentation,
that won't clash with the old Mondrian since as I understand it that has
been removed from the current Moose.
Speaking from what I remember of Roassal1, you could always get a
ROMondrianViewBuilder from an ROView, but not the other way around. So where previously you might have...
andShow: [ :a | a roassal painting: [ :mondrianViewBuilder | "do
mondrian stuff ...."
I guess it now needs to be modified to...
andShow: [ :a | a roassal painting: [ :roassalView | |
mondrianViewBuilder := ROMondrianViewBuilder on: roassalView. [ "do
mondrian stuff...."
Tx for this suggestion, it didn't cross my mind. Yes it is possible in
Roassal2 to ask for a particular builder based on a RTView.
RTBuilder new view: aRTView.
or alternatively, perhaps the following would be better...
andShow: [ :a | a mondrian painting: [ :mondrianViewBuilder | "do
mondrian stuff ...."
since this will no longer clash with the original Mondrian.
For me both abstractions are good but mondrian builder is better for new
comers because you don't start with Roassal doing a lot of stuff by hand
(Roassal stuff). It occurs only when you start integrating some minute
details.
BTW, I think it would be better to find a name for RoassalView (as Mondrian
represents ROMondrianView) because currently when explaining Roassal, we
say Roassal is the name of the tool that allows creating visualizations and
it is composed of Mondrian and.... Roassal (the low-level things we can do
with ROView). So, for me, a name is needed to describe the latter.
regards.
Usman
cheers -ben
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev