[Moose-dev] Re: Mondrian question

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: > >> Hi Stef, >> >> On 20 Jun 2011, at 13:18, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> >>> 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. > > No it is not > You have to send messages to nodes to get edges so the collection > is > not an edge collection > > > >>> 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. > > 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. > >> 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 -- www.tudorgirba.com "There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev