24 Mar
2014
24 Mar
'14
11:38 a.m.
Hello,
Is there any particular reason for GLMRoassal2Presentation working with
RTView instead of RTMondrianViewBuilder i.e. in the painting block, we get
RTView object instead of the builder.
I am asking this question because the predecessor, GLMRoassalPresentation,
used to work with ROMondrianViewBuilder. Now, when we'll move our
visualizations to work with Roassal2 in Glamour we'll have to make major
modifications to the source code because the level of details with RTView
and RTMondrianViewBuilder is not the same.
Usman
24 Mar
24 Mar
1:20 p.m.
Usually you do not want to work only with RTMondrianViewBuilder, but intend be able to mix
any builders.
Alexandre
On Mar 24, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Usman Bhatti <usman.bhatti(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Is there any particular reason for GLMRoassal2Presentation working with RTView instead of
RTMondrianViewBuilder i.e. in the painting block, we get RTView object instead of the
builder.
I am asking this question because the predecessor, GLMRoassalPresentation, used to work
with ROMondrianViewBuilder. Now, when we'll move our visualizations to work with
Roassal2 in Glamour we'll have to make major modifications to the source code because
the level of details with RTView and RTMondrianViewBuilder is not the same.
Usman
_______________________________________________
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
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
1:49 p.m.
Usman Bhatti wrote:
Hello,
Is there any particular reason for GLMRoassal2Presentation working
with RTView instead of RTMondrianViewBuilder i.e. in the painting
block, we get RTView object instead of the builder.
I am asking this question because the predecessor,
GLMRoassalPresentation, used to work with ROMondrianViewBuilder. Now,
when we'll move our visualizations to work with Roassal2 in Glamour
we'll have to make major modifications to the source code because the
level of details with RTView and RTMondrianViewBuilder is not the same.
Usman
I've been distracted for a while tackling Pharo 3 bugs leading up to
release, but I very pleased to hear of this change. As someone who was
using Roassal1 with Glamour sans Mondrian, it was painful and awkward to
get a raw ROView without the stuff that Mondrian adds to it. I
eventually found a work around that I think got integrated, but it was a
bit of a hack.
For a long while, it seemed to me that Roassal did not have an
independent identity separate from Mondrian. References to Mondrian and
Roassal seemed often used interchangeably. Some mixed concerns were
understandable since Roassal was (I believe) initially designed to
provide an abstraction layer under the Mondrian API. However as Roassal
finds broader use beyond Mondrian, things like GLMRoassalPresentation
need to be separated from Mondrian. However perhaps there needs to be a
new GLMMondrianPresentation, that won't clash with the old Mondrian
since as I understand it that has been removed from the current Moose.
Speaking from what I remember of Roassal1, you could always get a
ROMondrianViewBuilder from an ROView, but not the other way around. So
where previously you might have...
andShow: [ :a | a roassal painting: [ :mondrianViewBuilder | "do
mondrian stuff ...."
I guess it now needs to be modified to...
andShow: [ :a | a roassal painting: [ :roassalView | |
mondrianViewBuilder := ROMondrianViewBuilder on: roassalView. [ "do
mondrian stuff...."
or alternatively, perhaps the following would be better...
andShow: [ :a | a mondrian painting: [ :mondrianViewBuilder | "do
mondrian stuff ...."
since this will no longer clash with the original Mondrian.
cheers -ben
2:12 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote:
Usman Bhatti wrote:
You could always ask for the under-lying ROView for ROMondrianView with:
mondrianBuilder raw.
Hello,
Is there any particular reason for GLMRoassal2Presentation working with
RTView instead of RTMondrianViewBuilder i.e. in the painting block, we get
RTView object instead of the builder.
I am asking this question because the predecessor,
GLMRoassalPresentation, used to work with ROMondrianViewBuilder. Now, when
we'll move our visualizations to work with Roassal2 in Glamour we'll have
to make major modifications to the source code because the level of details
with RTView and RTMondrianViewBuilder is not the same.
Usman
I've been distracted for a while tackling Pharo 3 bugs leading up to
release, but I very pleased to hear of this change. As someone who was
using Roassal1 with Glamour sans Mondrian, it was painful and awkward to
get a raw ROView without the stuff that Mondrian adds to it. I eventually
found a work around that I think got integrated, but it was a bit of a
hack.
For a long while, it seemed to me that Roassal did not have an independent
identity separate from Mondrian. References to Mondrian and Roassal seemed
often used interchangeably. Some mixed concerns were understandable since
Roassal was (I believe) initially designed to provide an abstraction layer
under the Mondrian API. However as Roassal finds broader use beyond
Mondrian, things like GLMRoassalPresentation need to be separated from
Mondrian. However perhaps there needs to be a new GLMMondrianPresentation,
that won't clash with the old Mondrian since as I understand it that has
been removed from the current Moose.
Speaking from what I remember of Roassal1, you could always get a
ROMondrianViewBuilder from an ROView, but not the other way around. So where previously you might have...
andShow: [ :a | a roassal painting: [ :mondrianViewBuilder | "do
mondrian stuff ...."
I guess it now needs to be modified to...
andShow: [ :a | a roassal painting: [ :roassalView | |
mondrianViewBuilder := ROMondrianViewBuilder on: roassalView. [ "do
mondrian stuff...."
Tx for this suggestion, it didn't cross my mind. Yes it is possible in
Roassal2 to ask for a particular builder based on a RTView.
RTBuilder new view: aRTView.
or alternatively, perhaps the following would be better...
andShow: [ :a | a mondrian painting: [ :mondrianViewBuilder | "do
mondrian stuff ...."
since this will no longer clash with the original Mondrian.
For me both abstractions are good but mondrian builder is better for new
comers because you don't start with Roassal doing a lot of stuff by hand
(Roassal stuff). It occurs only when you start integrating some minute
details.
BTW, I think it would be better to find a name for RoassalView (as Mondrian
represents ROMondrianView) because currently when explaining Roassal, we
say Roassal is the name of the tool that allows creating visualizations and
it is composed of Mondrian and.... Roassal (the low-level things we can do
with ROView). So, for me, a name is needed to describe the latter.
regards.
Usman
cheers -ben
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
2:27 p.m.
Hi,
GLMRoassalPresentation supports a custom builder via the initializeWith:
block. However, this is rarely needed given that you can obtain the raw
ROView from the Mondrian builder instance. Take a look at:
GLMRoassalPresentation>>roassalDirect
"self new roassalDirect openOn: (1 to: 20)"
^ GLMWrapper new with: [ :browser |
browser show: [ :a |
a roassal
initializeView: [ ROView new @ RODraggable ] ;
painting: [ :view :numbers |
numbers do: [ :number |
view add: (ROElement spriteOn: number) + ROLabel ].
ROTreeLayout on: view elements
] ] ]
GLMRoassal2Presentation works similarly. The only difference is that in the
GLMRoassal2Presentation, the default view is RTView. However, please keep
in mind that Roassal2 does not have quite the same behavior as Roassal.
I was actually hoping that we get a unified way of handling builders. For
example, right now to make ROView be interchangeable with
ROMondrianViewBuilder, we extend ROView with applyLayout. Alex, would you
have time to look into this?
Cheers,
Doru
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Usman Bhatti <usman.bhatti(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
Usman Bhatti wrote:
You could always ask for the under-lying ROView for ROMondrianView with:
mondrianBuilder raw.
Hello,
Is there any particular reason for GLMRoassal2Presentation working with
RTView instead of RTMondrianViewBuilder i.e. in the painting block, we get
RTView object instead of the builder.
I am asking this question because the predecessor,
GLMRoassalPresentation, used to work with ROMondrianViewBuilder. Now, when
we'll move our visualizations to work with Roassal2 in Glamour we'll have
to make major modifications to the source code because the level of details
with RTView and RTMondrianViewBuilder is not the same.
Usman
I've been distracted for a while tackling Pharo 3 bugs leading up to
release, but I very pleased to hear of this change. As someone who was
using Roassal1 with Glamour sans Mondrian, it was painful and awkward to
get a raw ROView without the stuff that Mondrian adds to it. I eventually
found a work around that I think got integrated, but it was a bit of a
hack.
For a long while, it seemed to me that Roassal did not have an
independent identity separate from Mondrian. References to Mondrian and
Roassal seemed often used interchangeably. Some mixed concerns were
understandable since Roassal was (I believe) initially designed to provide
an abstraction layer under the Mondrian API. However as Roassal finds
broader use beyond Mondrian, things like GLMRoassalPresentation need to be
separated from Mondrian. However perhaps there needs to be a new
GLMMondrianPresentation, that won't clash with the old Mondrian since as I
understand it that has been removed from the current Moose.
Speaking from what I remember of Roassal1, you could always get a
ROMondrianViewBuilder from an ROView, but not the other way around. So where previously you might have...
andShow: [ :a | a roassal painting: [ :mondrianViewBuilder | "do
mondrian stuff ...."
I guess it now needs to be modified to...
andShow: [ :a | a roassal painting: [ :roassalView | |
mondrianViewBuilder := ROMondrianViewBuilder on: roassalView. [ "do
mondrian stuff...."
Tx for this suggestion, it didn't cross my mind. Yes it is possible in
Roassal2 to ask for a particular builder based on a RTView.
RTBuilder new view: aRTView.
or alternatively, perhaps the following would be better...
andShow: [ :a | a mondrian painting: [ :mondrianViewBuilder | "do
mondrian stuff ...."
since this will no longer clash with the original Mondrian.
For me both abstractions are good but mondrian builder is better for new
comers because you don't start with Roassal doing a lot of stuff by hand
(Roassal stuff). It occurs only when you start integrating some minute
details.
BTW, I think it would be better to find a name for RoassalView (as
Mondrian represents ROMondrianView) because currently when explaining
Roassal, we say Roassal is the name of the tool that allows creating
visualizations and it is composed of Mondrian and.... Roassal (the
low-level things we can do with ROView). So, for me, a name is needed to
describe the latter.
regards.
Usman
cheers -ben
_______________________________________________
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
3:48 p.m.
It is not that subjective, given that it is based on real usage. But, that
is not the point. I simply pointed out that it is often more convenient to
obtain the raw view directly from the view.
Doru
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote:
Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
GLMRoassalPresentation supports a custom builder via the initializeWith:
block.
However, this is rarely needed given that you can obtain the raw ROView
from the Mondrian builder instance. Take a look at:
'Rarely' is subjective :)
Being able to get the ROView from a the Mondrians 'rawView' instance
variable is not sufficient when you want a really
honest-to-goodness-fresh-clean-ROView, since Mondrian has already added
things like RODraggableWithVelocity. For the application being developed,
its the difference between being in control or not.
(ROMondrianViewBuilder new raw) ~= (ROView new).
cheers -ben
GLMRoassalPresentation>>roassalDirect
"self new roassalDirect openOn: (1 to: 20)"
^ GLMWrapper new with: [ :browser |
browser show: [ :a |
a roassal
initializeView: [ ROView new @ RODraggable ] ;
painting: [ :view :numbers |
numbers do: [ :number |
view add: (ROElement spriteOn: number) + ROLabel ].
ROTreeLayout on: view elements
] ] ]
GLMRoassal2Presentation works similarly. The only difference is that in
the GLMRoassal2Presentation, the default view is RTView. However, please
keep in mind that Roassal2 does not have quite the same behavior as Roassal.
I was actually hoping that we get a unified way of handling builders.
For example, right now to make ROView be interchangeable with
ROMondrianViewBuilder, we extend ROView with applyLayout. Alex, would you
have time to look into this?
Cheers,
Doru
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Usman Bhatti <usman.bhatti(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing
listMoose-dev@iam.unibe.chhttps://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
Usman Bhatti wrote:
You could always ask for the under-lying ROView for ROMondrianView
with: mondrianBuilder raw.
Hello,
Is there any particular reason for GLMRoassal2Presentation working with
RTView instead of RTMondrianViewBuilder i.e. in the painting block, we get
RTView object instead of the builder.
I am asking this question because the predecessor,
GLMRoassalPresentation, used to work with ROMondrianViewBuilder. Now, when
we'll move our visualizations to work with Roassal2 in Glamour we'll have
to make major modifications to the source code because the level of details
with RTView and RTMondrianViewBuilder is not the same.
Usman
I've been distracted for a while tackling Pharo 3 bugs leading up to
release, but I very pleased to hear of this change. As someone who was
using Roassal1 with Glamour sans Mondrian, it was painful and awkward to
get a raw ROView without the stuff that Mondrian adds to it. I eventually
found a work around that I think got integrated, but it was a bit of a
hack.
For a long while, it seemed to me that Roassal did not have an
independent identity separate from Mondrian. References to Mondrian and
Roassal seemed often used interchangeably. Some mixed concerns were
understandable since Roassal was (I believe) initially designed to provide
an abstraction layer under the Mondrian API. However as Roassal finds
broader use beyond Mondrian, things like GLMRoassalPresentation need to be
separated from Mondrian. However perhaps there needs to be a new
GLMMondrianPresentation, that won't clash with the old Mondrian since as I
understand it that has been removed from the current Moose.
Speaking from what I remember of Roassal1, you could always get a
ROMondrianViewBuilder from an ROView, but not the other way around. So where previously you might have...
andShow: [ :a | a roassal painting: [ :mondrianViewBuilder | "do
mondrian stuff ...."
I guess it now needs to be modified to...
andShow: [ :a | a roassal painting: [ :roassalView | |
mondrianViewBuilder := ROMondrianViewBuilder on: roassalView. [ "do
mondrian stuff...."
Tx for this suggestion, it didn't cross my mind. Yes it is possible in
Roassal2 to ask for a particular builder based on a RTView.
RTBuilder new view: aRTView.
or alternatively, perhaps the following would be better...
andShow: [ :a | a mondrian painting: [ :mondrianViewBuilder | "do
mondrian stuff ...."
since this will no longer clash with the original Mondrian.
For me both abstractions are good but mondrian builder is better for
new comers because you don't start with Roassal doing a lot of stuff by
hand (Roassal stuff). It occurs only when you start integrating some minute
details.
BTW, I think it would be better to find a name for RoassalView (as
Mondrian represents ROMondrianView) because currently when explaining
Roassal, we say Roassal is the name of the tool that allows creating
visualizations and it is composed of Mondrian and.... Roassal (the
low-level things we can do with ROView). So, for me, a name is needed to
describe the latter.
regards.
Usman
cheers -ben
_______________________________________________
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
3926
days inactive
3926
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Ben Coman -
Tudor Girba -
Usman Bhatti