20 Jun
2011
20 Jun
'11
2:46 p.m.
Hi,
I am repeating for the n-th time: The input to Mondrian are not nodes & edges. The
input are only entities which can be anything. The engine simply provides a means to
transform your entities into nodes and edges.
Take this point of view, and you will see that it becomes consistent :)
You keep on repeating that you are passing nodes to the edges:, but you are not. You are
always passing some entities from which the edges are to be constructed. That is all. It
just happens that you choose to use the same entity as a model for both an node and an
edge. It is clear that if there is no easy mapping between the entity model and the graph
model, the script can become cumbersome.
Let's take your example:
view node: 'node' forIt: [
view interaction
whenEnteringUpdateNode: [ :aValue |
view edges: {aValue} from: #yourself toAll: ((1 to: 9) copyWithout: aValue ) ].
view shape rectangle size: 30.
view nodes: (1 to: 9).
view gridLayout gapSize: 10.
First, this example is not instructive because it takes several shortcuts, but let's
just focus on aValue.
In your script, aValue is the value behind the node, not the node. The node is another
object. Then you use it also as the model for the edge because you do not have anything
else. So, you will have the same aValue object used both for creating the node and for
creating the edge.
So, a method like
buildEdgesFromVertices: nodes fromAccessor: aValuable toAccessor: aValuable
is wrong in the context of Mondrian, because it uses the wrong vocabulary.
How is that? :)
Cheers,
Doru
On 20 Jun 2011, at 14:15, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On Jun 20, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
I really lost then.
Because in
view node: 'node' forIt: [
view interaction
whenEnteringUpdateNode: [ :aValue |
view edges: {aValue} from: #yourself toAll: ((1 to: 9) copyWithout: aValue ) ].
view shape rectangle size: 30.
view nodes: (1 to: 9).
view gridLayout gapSize: 10.
aValue is a node not an Edge?
I always have the problem with mondrian that what I say is wrong. It is a wonderful
feeling.
Now I see what the API says
is Oh
nodes: nodes you specify nodes with nodes nice
but you specify edges with nodes...... not nice
edges: nodes
And for me this is confusing. Because why do I have to remember that edges: is not about
edges but about nodes that will generate information about edge.
What you call declarative for me is really confusing.
Now changing aCollection to aCollectionOfEntities only work is you explain
systematically in the comments that theses are entities
in fact the entities that are not first class relationship and nodes that can generate
information to represent the edges. Else without context
collectionOfEntities look like collection of objects.
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them."
Hi Stef,
On 20 Jun 2011, at 13:18, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
No it is not
You have to send messages to nodes to get edges so the collection is not an edge
collection
I think that this is more than just having
correct/good comments....
is the parameter passed to edges: consistent? I do not think so
It is consistent. All the time the first argument sent to edges:from:to and nodes: is
meant to hold a collection of entities that will be the model behind the graph element. In
the case of nodes, there is no fancy transformation. In the case of edge, there are two
transformations. That is all.
If you find a case in which this is not true, then we need to fix that.
at least from what I understood
edges: from: to:
and
aView edges: someFamixInvocations from: #sender toAll: #candidates
show different cases.
Now if nodes: except a collection of entities playing the node role
why edges is not a collection of antities playing edges role?
It is. Corollary
why in some cases this is the case and in other not?
Just the comments are misleading. It is always the same. Only when you have something
marked differently, you expect a different input, like edgesFromAssociations: which expect
to have a collection of associations. But those are just convenience. Again, the comment needs to be fixed.
Does this clarify the situation?
Yes but I do not like it. Why because
edges: from: to: is connoted
Since math exist edges: are edges and not vertices from: is a vertex and to: another
vertex
So if I need to build visualization in Mondrian I will build a layer on top a layer for
idiots like me.
buildEdgesFromVertices: nodes fromAccessor: aValuable toAccessor: aValuable
Now I would really like to have a non declarative way of expressing that. In fact I do
not even understand why a declarative way is supposed to be better than an imperative one.
Especially because most of the time the order is important in Mondrian.
Declarations does not talk to me and the the stack semantics of Mondrian is difficult to
understand and debug. And do not dream there will be no debugger able to debug Mondrian
scripts
in the close future. So we are left with method names and arguments and guessing right.
What frustrate me with mondrian is that I'm programming in lisp without any debugger,
but worse not printf.....
So I start fast and boum I hit the wall and got trapped in DSL swamps.
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev