On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Guillaume Larcheveque <guillaume.larcheveque@gmail.com> wrote:

2015-07-22 7:40 GMT+02:00 Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com>:
On another note...

why no inspector support?

[[[
TLVisualization>>gtInspectorVisualizationIn: aComposite
<gtInspectorPresentationOrder: -1>
self generate.
aComposite roassal2
title: 'Visualization';
initializeView: [ self generator view ]
]]]
Because you cannot just open a Visualization like that; it requires some datas.

What do you mean? The datas were introduced to the object already, this is same like calling "visualization open". Or maybe I am treating TL scripts too much like Roassal scripts with different API.

Why build a completely new layer of indirection with different API instead of improving and extending Roassal (=Telescope alongside Roassal instead of on top of it)? It seems like a lot of effort went into creating it while it would have had bigger and better impact in Roassal...

Because we created Telescope when we had to move from Roassal to Roassal2 and at this time Roassal2 was not supporting a Mondrian like syntax so we tried to create an equivalent powerful syntax than Mondrian with an object oriented approach

I do understand this but that's not what I am asking. Why not create it alongside Roassal2 instead of on top of it; or just create a better Mondrian? What I am trying to understand is what is the benefit of introducing a whole new level of indirection just to simplify one thing, instead of improving the underlying layer in the first place. Because I feel that I am loosing a lot of power because Roassal is hidden from me.

And this got overlooked probably (relates to the question above):

So there is TLStyleSheet>>compositeExpandedByDefault:

But what if I want for example to have the option to manually resize something? Roassal gives me RTResizeable. Would I have to write some special TLInteraction or can I somehow reuse what Roassal offers? This also applies for Roassal interactions in general.

And even for Roassal in general... e.g.

RTShape allSubclasses size. "30"

TLSimpleShape allSubclasses size. "3"

So if I wanted to use some other shape from Roassal (for example box with rounded corners), would I have to create matching TL shape and then define mapping in the generator/connector?

Thanks,

Peter