You could simply multiply it. We have in the Mondrian builder: logWidth: aBlock self width: [ :v | ((aBlock value: v) + 1) log * 10 ] Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

The function of the layout is to locate nodes. As soon as a layout has to change the size of a node, this means that you do not want to use the Mondrian builder, but instead create your own builder. In your case, I think you need to adjust the shape from the script, and not from the layout. For example, Mathieu's code is -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= b := 30. view shape rectangle width: [ :cls | cls numberOfVariables * 5 ]; height: #numberOfMethods; color: (Color r: 0 g: 1 b: 1 ). view nodes: TestCase withAllSubclasses. view nodes do: [ :e | (e width > b ) ifTrue: [ e shapes first color: (Color r: 1 g: 0 b: 1 ) ] ]. view layout:(( RORectanglePacking new)ratioWidth: 10 height: 10; padding: 4; logWidthIfMoreThan: b scale: 5). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= It could simply be: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= view shape rectangle width: [ :cls | (cls numberOfVariables + 1) log * 30 ]; height: #numberOfMethods; color: (Color r: 0 g: 1 b: 1 ); if: [ :cls | cls numberOfVariables > 10 ] fillColor: (Color r: 1 g: 0 b: 1) . view nodes: TestCase withAllSubclasses. view layout: (( RORectanglePacking new) ratioWidth: 10 height: 10; padding: 4). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

On May 30, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: but in that case we lose logic. I think that logic should not be in clients. We should have objects that naturally embed it. Your approach works but for simple layout. Packing is probably one of the most difficult one since you have two dimensions and outliers.

On May 30, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: My goal is not understanding this is having at hand the right tool. Examples and documentation are for that. Or we should just do addition and multiplication but no more. If you have nested packing boxes then you should not use the local recomputation of the node size because you would lose the overall comparison (this is why I say that we should have one that is neutral) but when you have one In addition we should be able to pass the parameter from one packing to the other so that we can pack with smoothing and get the same smooth. Of course the client that take the responsibility to compute an ecrattype and apply an exponential or a linear transformation. For my layout are not limited to node positions. Yes this is why we should pay attention to log and other manipulation. Now if there is a couple of boxes that fuck up your visualization and as such you tool and in this turn your end-user and clients then being able to take reasonable actions is important. I hate the term script. We write programs. Now if what we are doing is not worth let us know. We can also create our own layouts and do not share them. I can also avoid to pay guys to work on roassal or to work on our own packages. Because if having two variability points on packing (which is one difficult algorithm) does not make happy moosers we will not bother you with that. Stef

Hi Mathieu, I know that you have to specify it :). All I am saying is that it would be great to have some sort of convention that alerts a user that some fancier decision is being made behind the scene when two specifications compete with each other. Perhaps having a certain name for the setting is good enough. Is this point really so terrible? Cheers, Doru On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:59 AM, <mathieubmddehouck(a)mailoo.org> wrote: -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

Hi Stef, I do not understand your tone. I am not unhappy at all. I was just talking about a concern I have. It might be completely irrelevant or even wrong, but it is a concern I have. So, I am raising it. Please let's just continue to work as a team that can happen to have divergent opinions (which in this case, it's not even that much of the case). I will reply to the technical details separately. Cheers, Doru On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Stéphane Ducasse &lt;stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr > > On May 30, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Tudor Girba &lt;tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> > Interesting point. > > However, often by adding multiple options, you can make a script difficult > to understand. > > > My goal is not understanding this is having at hand the right tool. > Examples and documentation are for that. Or we should just do addition and > multiplication but no more. > When you need to make a significant decision fast on which a larger project depends, you will care about the trace-ability of your reasoning. I was several times in this situation, and if I got to doubt > One significant problem when building a representation, is to ensure that > what it shows is what you think it shows (ha, I just coined my own > abbreviation: WISIWYTIS :)). This is particularly important in scenarios in > which we take only 15 minutes to look at a piece of data. > > > If you have nested packing boxes then you should not use the local > recomputation of the node size > because you would lose the overall comparison (this is why I say that we > should have one that > is neutral) but when you have one > > In addition we should be able to pass the parameter from one packing to > the other so that > we can pack with smoothing and get the same smooth. > > Of course the client that take the responsibility to compute an ecrattype > and apply an exponential or a linear > transformation. For my layout are not limited to node positions. > > Imagine you have the nodes defining their own size, and at the same time > we have the layout that makes a decision about size. Simply by looking at > the picture you will not know whether it shows what you expect simply > without knowing exactly what decisions have been made by the underlying > engine. The only way you will know if by inspecting each shape and see if > it matches the node size, and not the implicit sizing algorithm. > > I am not sure I made my point clear. > > > Yes this is why we should pay attention to log and other manipulation. > > Now if there is a couple of boxes that fuck up your visualization and as > such you > tool and in this turn your end-user and clients then being able to take > reasonable actions is important. > > > In any case, I think we should ensure simple and transparent rules to keep > scripts understandable. > > > I hate the term script. We write programs. > > Now if what we are doing is not worth let us know. We can also create our > own layouts and do not share them. > I can also avoid to pay guys to work on roassal or to work on our own > packages. > Because if having two variability points on packing (which is one > difficult algorithm) does not make happy > moosers we will not bother you with that. > > Stef > > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:09 AM, stephane ducasse < > stephane.ducasse(a)free.fr> >> >> On May 30, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Tudor Girba &lt;tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>> >> > I agree. >> > >> > We want to keep to a minimum the amount of hardcoded decisions in the >> engine. In this case, the solution proposed by Alex is just fine while >> still keeping the layout generic and applicable to various cases. >> >> >> but in that case we lose logic. I think that logic should not be in >> clients. We should have objects that naturally >> embed it. >> >> Your approach works but for simple layout. Packing is probably one of the >> most difficult one >> since you have two dimensions and outliers. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Doru >> > >> > >> > On May 29, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Alexandre Bergel &lt;alexandre.bergel(a)me.com&gt; >>> > >> >>> On May 29, 2013, at 4:38 PM, Alexandre Bergel < >> alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>> >>> >> >>>> As we have discussed with Mathieu today, the layout should not >> change the size of the node. >> >>> >> >>> why? >> >>> Because I spent one hour with him trying to find way to reduce the >> size of the largest node >> >>> if necessary. nd not using log because log is too strong. >> >> >> >> The function of the layout is to locate nodes. As soon as a layout has >> to change the size of a node, this means that you do not want to use the >> Mondrian builder, but instead create your own builder. In your case, I >> think you need to adjust the shape from the script, and not from the >> layout. For example, Mathieu's code is >> >> >> >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> >> b := 30. >> >> view shape rectangle >> >> width: [ :cls | cls numberOfVariables * 5 ]; >> >> height: #numberOfMethods; >> >> color: (Color r: 0 g: 1 b: 1 ). >> >> view nodes: TestCase withAllSubclasses. >> >> view nodes do: [ :e | (e width > b ) ifTrue: [ e shapes first color: >> (Color r: 1 g: 0 b: 1 ) ] ]. >> >> view layout:(( RORectanglePacking new)ratioWidth: 10 height: 10; >> padding: 4; logWidthIfMoreThan: b scale: 5). >> >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> >> >> >> It could simply be: >> >> >> >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> >> view shape rectangle >> >> width: [ :cls | (cls numberOfVariables + 1) log * 30 ]; >> >> height: #numberOfMethods; >> >> color: (Color r: 0 g: 1 b: 1 ); >> >> if: [ :cls | cls numberOfVariables > 10 ] fillColor: (Color r: 1 >> g: 0 b: 1) . >> >> >> >> view nodes: TestCase withAllSubclasses. >> >> view layout: (( RORectanglePacking new) ratioWidth: 10 height: 10; >> padding: 4). >> >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alexandre >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> If this is necessary, then a new builder is necessary. We are >> currently working on two new builder (one for DSMs and another for >> Sunburst). >> >>>> >> >>>> Alexandre >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On May 28, 2013, at 9:12 AM, mathieubmddehouck(a)mailoo.org wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I've fixed a big on ROArc, so that it draws well. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> And I've commented and added methods to RORectanglePacking to >> reduce biggest nodes, and so on. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> try: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Gofer new >> >>>>> smalltalkhubUser: 'MathieuDehouck' project: 'RoassalAlgorithm'; >> >>>>> package: 'Roassal-New'; >> >>>>> load >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> | view rawView n b | >> >>>>> rawView := ROView new. >> >>>>> view := ROMondrianViewBuilder view: rawView. >> >>>>> "-------------" >> >>>>> "-------------" >> >>>>> b := 30. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> view shape rectangle >> >>>>> width: [ :cls | cls numberOfVariables * 5 ]; >> >>>>> height: #numberOfMethods; >> >>>>> color: (Color r: 0 g: 1 b: 1 ). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> view nodes: TestCase withAllSubclasses. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> view nodes do: [ :e | (e width > b ) ifTrue: [ e shapes first >> color: (Color r: 1 g: 0 b: 1 ) ] ]. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> view layout:(( RORectanglePacking new)ratioWidth: 10 height: 10; >> padding: 4; logWidthIfMoreThan: b scale: 5). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> "-------------" >> >>>>> "-------------" >> >>>>> "Below is the initiation of the menu and opening the visualization" >> >>>>> ROEaselMorphic new populateMenuOn: view. >> >>>>> view open. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> There are other log... methods, and scale represent the factor to >> multiply the logs by. (yes log 10 = 1 and that's pretty small in pixel) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Regards >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Mathieu >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> P.S. The screens have been made with the width and the height in >> the same time. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> <RECT TestCase log 30.png><Rect >> after.png>_______________________________________________ >> >>>>> 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 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> 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 >> > >> > -- >> > www.tudorgirba.com >> > >> > "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, >> > you will end up with a messy haircut." >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

This sounds great. Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow." On 30.05.2013, at 13:55, Stéphane Ducasse &lt;stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr&gt; wrote:

In fact thinking about it I thought that you want to have both - simple Packing algo that is totally agnotisc and where the user has to pass the right node shape and the alternative. Stef On May 30, 2013, at 9:05 AM, stephane ducasse &lt;stephane.ducasse(a)free.fr&gt; wrote: