As soon as it will become open-source (right now it's not), I would
start looking into it more closely :)
Doru
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
Sure. It will also support Cairo and produce HTML5.
Alexandre
On 28 Mar 2012, at 10:08, Ben Coman wrote:
Will Roassal be integrated with Glamour?
Alexandre Bergel wrote:
Yes, this example Examples > subviews > add subview is about adding inner
nodes when a particular action occurs. It is not meant to be the way to
statically defines subviews.
I agree this is not elegant. This is exactly the reason why I am working on
Roassal.
Alexandre
On 24 Mar 2012, at 15:31, Ben Coman wrote:
My original example below was a little artificial in order to be concise.
It actually stemmed from not quite grasping the architecture of Mondrian
(which has evolved in the last couple of days) and was equivalent to
bypassing the line (view node: self) below. I had been going...
MyContainerClass>>addSubViewTo: view
view node: self.
view forNode: self do: [...]
I had not yet discovered #node:forIt: and it suites much better. Thanks.
btw, I had taken the use of #forNode:do: from World > Mondrian Easel >
Examples > subviews > add subview
which makes it look like an external method, as well as it not being in the
'private' method category of MOViewRenderer.
Is there another way to do that example with external methods?
cheers, -ben
Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
forNode:do: is an internal method. You should use node:forIt: or
nodes:forEach: to construct nested graphs.
Cheers,
Doru
On 23 Mar 2012, at 15:26, Ben Coman wrote:
Background:
I am trying to use Mondrian to visualize SomeContainerClass holding
SomeOtherContainerClass that holds Equipment classes. So I was thinking
each container class might have a method (#subviewOf: aView) which at some
point does (aView forNode: self do:). Now I have come to the understanding
that I am probably misusing #forNode:do: like that, and am continuing
exploring that, but thought I would report the MNU that I encountered before
moving on - just in case it was desirable to guard against such abuse.
Steps to Reproduce:
The essence of this distills down to the following in Mondrian Easel, where
this first case works....
view nodes: (1 to: 20).
view forNode: 2 do: [ view nodes: (50 to: 52) ]
but this second case...
view nodes: (1 to: 20).
view forNode: view do: [ view nodes: (50 to: 52) ]
gets MNU "removeAllEdges"
Inserting 'self halt' between the two lines and tracing through to
MONode>>nodeWith:ifAbsent shows the line...
nodeLookedUp := self nodes detect: [:each | each model = anObject ]
ifNone: aBlock.
has in the first case (self nodes) as anOrderedCollection of 20 items
and in the second (self nodes) is an empty Array.
Just reporting for discussion. I am not sure if this would be considered a
bug worth tracking, or just an abuse of the framework.
Cheers, Ben
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Value is always contextual."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
________________________________
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel
http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev