Hi,
I actually find it quite elegant as it is now.
The reasons are as follows: 1. there will be more scripts in the high level api than in the low level one of Roassal 2. you can still make use of the roassal quite easily by specifying "view raw" in all the low level commands (no need to store it in a variable) 3. ideally, we should still have only one entry point to eliminate confusion 4. if you want to write a Roassal script, it will be longer and will not fit in a block anyway. Thus, you would put the visualization in a method and all you have to do is to pass "view raw" to it
Cheers, Doru
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Ben Coman btc@openinworld.com wrote:
For a long time I have had the code below linking Magritte-Roassal. Originally I had expected ":view" to hold aROView, and it was a surprise when I found out held aROMondrianViewBuilder instead. While it makes sense to have had a drop in replacement for the Magritte-Mondrian, and it is simple to get the ROView from the ROMondrianBuilder, it feels inelegant to have to do this each time.
browser transmit from: #pane1 to: #pane2 andShow: [ :a | a roassal title: 'Instance Model Full View'; painting: [ :view :selection | | rawView | rawView := view raw. ...etc... ] ].
Looking in from outside and considering long term broadening use of Roassal outside of Mondrian, it would "feel" better if ... andShow: [ :a | a roassal.... passed aROView as a parameter to #painting, and the Mondrian drop-in replacement to be something like ... andShow: [ :a | a roassalMondrian andShow: [ :a | a roMondrian andShow: [ :a | a mondrianBuilder which passed aROMondrianBuilder.
cheers -ben
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev