There are more related problems.
Here is one: ROElement>>width: w self extent: (w roValue: self model) @ self height ROElement>>height: h self extent: self width @ (h roValue: self model)
I see two problems here: 1. The width and height are computed by the element when we set the block, rather than be computed in the shape when we need the information. 2. The blocks are evaluated against the model
This should be fixed.
Cheers, Doru
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Great! I like it now :)
Doru
On 15 Oct 2012, at 18:21, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
This piece of documentation should go in ROShape.
Done
Alexandre
Doru
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel@me.com> wrote:
All the accessors in Mondrian's builder operates on the model. However, outside the builder, shapes accepts roassal elements.
For example:
testIfFillColor
| nodes | view shape rectangle if: #odd fillColor: [ :model | model + 1]; if: #even fillColor: [ :model | model + 10]. nodes := view nodes: #(2 3 4 5 6). self assert: (nodes collect: [ :n | (n getShape: ROBox)colorFor: n]) = #(12 4 14 6 16)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This piece of code works only in the test since a number is not a
color. But it illustrates the point.
Then fillColor: is defined as:
ROMondrianBuilder>>fillColor: aBlockOrSymbol "aBlockOrSymbol expect to be evaluated against the model. It may
either be a symbol or a one-arg block"
shape color: [ :element | aBlockOrSymbol roValue: element model ]-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Something is left ugly, that I cannot easily remove:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ROMondrianBuilder>>if: conditionBlock fillColor: colorBlock "If conditionBlock is evaluated at true, then colorBlock is used
to set the color of the node. Both conditionBlock and colorBlock are evaluated with the model value of the node."
| oldBlockOrValue | oldBlockOrValue := self fillColor ifNil: [ self defaultFillColor].
^self fillColor: [ :aModel | (conditionBlock roValue: aModel)ifTrue: [ colorBlock roValue: aModel ]
ifFalse: [
"Having to create a new element is rather ugly.Ideally, the oldBlockOrValue has to be 'unwrapped' for thetranslation"
oldBlockOrValue roValue: (ROElement on: aModel) ]].-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Cheers, Alexandre
On Oct 15, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
In which way?
Cheers, Doru
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel@me.com> wrote:
Well spotted. Version 1.165 of Roassal is now consistent.
Cheers, Alexandre
On Oct 14, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi,
On 14 Oct 2012, at 16:07, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com
wrote:
> For example, take the text block of a label: > > textFor: aROElement > | v | > v := (text roValue: aROElement). > ... > > If the separation would be clear for everyone the roValue: would be
evaluated against the model.
We are now pointing at something interesting.
ROAbstractLabel>>textFor: indeed contains " (text roValue: aROElement)", which is okay to me.
The problem is that right now Roassal is not consistent. Either all
transformation methods in shapes talk to the element, or they all talk to the model. Right now, we have 4 methods talking to the model and 3 talking to the element.
Evaluate this to check: methodsThatCallModel := OrderedCollection new. methodsThatCallElement := OrderedCollection new. ROShape withAllSubclasses flatCollect: [:cls | | forMethods | forMethods := cls methods select: [:each | each selector
endsWith: 'For:'].
forMethods do: [:method | method parseTree allChildren do: [:node | (node isMessage and: [ node selector = #roValue:])
ifTrue: [ (node children noneSatisfy:[:childNode | childNode isMessage ])
ifTrue:[methodsThatCallModel add: method]
ifFalse:[methodsThatCallElement add: method]
] ] ]]. methodsThatCallModel explore. methodsThatCallElement explore.
Within the builder it can be otherwise...
If all shapes work consistently with the element, we would have to
build a parallel hierarchy for shape builders to make them talk with the model. It can be done, but the design should be consistent.
Cheers, Doru
Alexandre
> > >> - The builder should probably develop towards offering high-level
patterns of animation that still preserve the transformation metaphor.
> > Yes > >> - And perhaps we have to go beyond the current builder. For
example, EyeSee is an example of another API and model that could probably be implemented on top of Roassal.
> > That would be cool. > Some users of Roassal have expressed such a need... > > Alexandre > >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> Alexandre >> >> >> On Oct 11, 2012, at 3:46 AM, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com
wrote:
>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> There were several posts that intrigued me lately related to the >>> difference between Mondrian and Roassal, and I did not know
exactly
>>> why. Now, I think the reason stems from the conceptual difference >>> between the two. So, here I go :) >>> - Roassal is a basic engine that provides a DOM-like graph object >>> model. Its main goal is to enable one to build and manipulate
visual
>>> objects. >>> - Mondrian is a high level transformation engine. Its main goal
is to
>>> enable one to transform an arbitrary subject model into a graph >>> visualization. >>> >>> Of course, Mondrian had a basic engine, too, inside, but it was
not as
>>> flexible as Roassal (especially in the animation part). However,
the
>>> main point of Mondrian was really to support the transformation. >>> >>> It is for this reason that all blocks in the Mondrian API take the >>> subject model as an input. The target is the developer that knows
his
>>> model and almost nothing about Mondrian (except for the simple >>> transformation predicates). This was a conscious decision, not a >>> mistake. It is clear that you miss flexibility (e.g., you cannot >>> manipulate the node within an action block), but you gain
simplicity
>>> for basic actions. >>> >>> Another choice in Mondrian was to focus on the graph model. It is >>> again clear that this decision excluded some classes of >>> visualizations, and as a result several visualizations misused the >>> high-level transformation engine for low level object placing. An >>> example of this is the DSM. It is precisely in this area (and of >>> course others that were not charted yet) that Roassal can play a
very
>>> important role. >>> >>> I think both points of view are important, and it would be cool to >>> look for solutions that marry both (1) the transformation engine
level
>>> that speaks mostly the "language" of the original objects, and
(2) the
>>> graphical engine that offers basic blocks for visual manipulation. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch >>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> 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 >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > 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 > > "Every thing has its own flow" > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: 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
"Problem solving efficiency grows with the abstractness level of
problem understanding."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: 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
"Every thing has its own flow"
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: 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
"Every thing has its own flow"
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: 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
"Some battles are better lost than fought."