Hi,
Consider this script:
view := RTMondrian new. view shape label. view nodes: { 1 . 2 }. view edges objects: { 1 }; connectFrom: [ :x | x + 1 ]. view
The expectation is to create 2 nodes and an edge between them. However, the script does not create any edges.
The reason is that the collection that is passed to objects: is also used to search the source and target nodes. This is a problem, because this type of filtering is rarely needed.
I believe we should keep objects: to only denote the input set of objects that need to be iterated in order to produce the edges. And, if needed, we can add another selector specifically only for filtering (like restrictEdgeSourceToObjects: / restrictEdgeTargetToObjects: ).
What do you think?
Cheers, Doru
Hi Doru,
You are raising an interesting topic here. #objects: set the from objects and to the objects. These can be manually set using: #fromObjects: and #toObjects: If you wish to restrict the target or the source, then you need to use #fromObjects: or #toObjects: Here are some examples:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= view := RTMondrian new. view shape label. view nodes: { 1 . 2 }. view edges fromObjects: { 1 }; connectTo: [ :x | x + 1 ]. view -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= view := RTMondrian new. view shape label. view nodes: { 1 . 2 }. view edges toObjects: { 1 }; connectFrom: [ :x | x + 1 ]. view -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
However, one part that is clearly insufficient is the way nodes are lookedup along the nesting hierarchy. Consider: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= view := RTMondrian new. view nodes: { 1 . 2 } forEach: [ :aValue | view nodes: {1 . 2}. view edges toObjects: { 1 }; connectFrom: [ :x | x + 1 ]. view layout verticalLine ]. view -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This does not gives a meaningful result. However, I could not find any representative example of this beside toy examples with numbers.
Cheers, Alexandre
On Sep 20, 2015, at 5:39 PM, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi,
Consider this script:
view := RTMondrian new. view shape label. view nodes: { 1 . 2 }. view edges objects: { 1 }; connectFrom: [ :x | x + 1 ]. view
The expectation is to create 2 nodes and an edge between them. However, the script does not create any edges.
The reason is that the collection that is passed to objects: is also used to search the source and target nodes. This is a problem, because this type of filtering is rarely needed.
I believe we should keep objects: to only denote the input set of objects that need to be iterated in order to produce the edges. And, if needed, we can add another selector specifically only for filtering (like restrictEdgeSourceToObjects: / restrictEdgeTargetToObjects: ).
What do you think?
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow" _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi,
I know that objects: depends on fromObjects: and toObjects:, but this is still not enough. fromObjects: and toObjects: are meant to filter the resulting nodes. However, the first use case that we need to support when specifying edges is to provide the objects that you want to traverse. These objects are not necessarily part of the node objects.
Consider this:
a := FAMIXClass new name: 'A'. b := FAMIXClass new name: 'B'. i := FAMIXInheritance new superclass: a; subclass: b. view := RTMondrian new. view nodes: { a . b }. view edges object: i; connectFrom: #superclass to: #subclass. view
With the current API, there is no way to make this work. We need to separate the specification of objects to be traversed from the filtering mechanism.
Cheers, Doru
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
Hi Doru,
You are raising an interesting topic here. #objects: set the from objects and to the objects. These can be manually set using: #fromObjects: and #toObjects: If you wish to restrict the target or the source, then you need to use #fromObjects: or #toObjects: Here are some examples:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= view := RTMondrian new. view shape label. view nodes: { 1 . 2 }. view edges fromObjects: { 1 }; connectTo: [ :x | x + 1 ]. view -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= view := RTMondrian new. view shape label. view nodes: { 1 . 2 }. view edges toObjects: { 1 }; connectFrom: [ :x | x + 1 ]. view -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
However, one part that is clearly insufficient is the way nodes are lookedup along the nesting hierarchy. Consider: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= view := RTMondrian new. view nodes: { 1 . 2 } forEach: [ :aValue | view nodes: {1 . 2}. view edges toObjects: { 1 }; connectFrom: [ :x | x + 1 ]. view layout verticalLine ]. view -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This does not gives a meaningful result. However, I could not find any representative example of this beside toy examples with numbers.
Cheers, Alexandre
On Sep 20, 2015, at 5:39 PM, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi,
Consider this script:
view := RTMondrian new. view shape label. view nodes: { 1 . 2 }. view edges objects: { 1 }; connectFrom: [ :x | x + 1 ]. view
The expectation is to create 2 nodes and an edge between them. However,
the script does not create any edges.
The reason is that the collection that is passed to objects: is also
used to search the source and target nodes. This is a problem, because this type of filtering is rarely needed.
I believe we should keep objects: to only denote the input set of
objects that need to be iterated in order to produce the edges. And, if needed, we can add another selector specifically only for filtering (like restrictEdgeSourceToObjects: / restrictEdgeTargetToObjects: ).
What do you think?
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow" _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Oh! Well spotted!
a := FAMIXClass new name: 'A'. b := FAMIXClass new name: 'B'. i := FAMIXInheritance new superclass: a; subclass: b. view := RTMondrian new. view nodes: { a . b }. view edges object: i; connectFrom: #superclass to: #subclass. view
With the current API, there is no way to make this work. We need to separate the specification of objects to be traversed from the filtering mechanism.
What could it be then? Something like:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= view edges searchObjectFrom: i; connectFrom: #superclass to: #subclass -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I do not like the name #searchObjectFrom: but I do not see any better now.
That should be easy to implement…
Alexandre
I would do it like this:
view edges connect: aCollection from: [ ... ] to: [ ... ]
Doru
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
Oh! Well spotted!
a := FAMIXClass new name: 'A'. b := FAMIXClass new name: 'B'. i := FAMIXInheritance new superclass: a; subclass: b. view := RTMondrian new. view nodes: { a . b }. view edges object: i; connectFrom: #superclass to: #subclass. view
With the current API, there is no way to make this work. We need to
separate the specification of objects to be traversed from the filtering mechanism.
What could it be then? Something like:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= view edges searchObjectFrom: i; connectFrom: #superclass to: #subclass -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I do not like the name #searchObjectFrom: but I do not see any better now.
That should be easy to implement…
Alexandre
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Tudor Girba