24 Apr
2014
24 Apr
'14
3:39 p.m.
Hi!
I’ve just introduced a new class TRExtensibleLabelShape and TRLabelShape. This will ease
the problem we are experiencing with using labels in a composed shape.
I would like now to discuss about how to compose shapes. This has been a big discussion
for at least 5 years. I propose a solution in this email, I hope this will make most of us
happy :-)
Consider the example:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 c es |
v := RTView new.
s1 := (RTEllipse new size: #yourself; color: (Color blue alpha: 0.4)).
s2 := (RTLabel new text: 'Hello World'; height: 10).
c := RTCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: s2;
offset2: 0 @ -30.
es := c elementsOn: #(30 60 80).
es @ RTDraggable.
v addAll: es.
es when: TRMouseClick do: [ :evt | evt element remove. v signalUpdate ].
RTHorizontalLineLayout on: v elements.
v open
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This is the output:
If you click on an element, then the element with its label is properly removed. Yupi! Leo
will be happy with that :-)
The reason is that how can I specify to have s2 above s1? What should I put in offset2 ?
Instead of fiddling with blocks like [:shape1 :shape2 :element | … ] I have introduced
RTHorizontalCompositeShape and RTVerticalCompositeShape just to try whether it make sense
or not.
We can have
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 c es |
v := RTView new.
s1 := (RTEllipse new size: #yourself; color: (Color blue alpha: 0.4)).
s2 := (RTLabel new text: 'Hello World'; height: 10).
c := RTHorizontalCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: s2.
es := c elementsOn: #(30 60 80).
es @ RTDraggable.
v addAll: es.
RTHorizontalLineLayout on: v elements.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Replacing Horizontal by Vertical works as expected.
You can also compose these things. Look at that:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 c es |
v := RTView new.
s1 := (RTEllipse new size: #yourself; color: (Color blue alpha: 0.4)).
s2 := (RTLabel new text: 'Hello World'; height: 10).
c2 := RTVerticalCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: s2.
c := RTHorizontalCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: c2.
es := c elementsOn: #(30 60 80).
es @ RTDraggable.
v addAll: es.
RTHorizontalLineLayout on: v elements.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Are we happy with RTVerticalCompositeShape, RTHorizontalCompositeShape and
RTCompositeShape ?
If yes, then RTLabelling (and its problem of passing the view along :-) will be obsolete.
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
24 Apr
24 Apr
4:49 p.m.
As I use a lot of CompositeShape in my project I will give you a lot of
feedbacks ;-)
I like the composition of composite shape itself. I needed it now it will
so much easier.
But is it possible the put a RTCompositeShape as fixed ? Let me give you an
example to show you
I'm working on a Menu in my vizualisation so i want them fix. But a menu is
a label and its "background' so a composite shape. Can I set it as fixed ?
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote;wrote:
Hi!
I’ve just introduced a new class TRExtensibleLabelShape and TRLabelShape.
This will ease the problem we are experiencing with using labels in a
composed shape.
I would like now to discuss about how to compose shapes. This has been a
big discussion for at least 5 years. I propose a solution in this email, I
hope this will make most of us happy :-)
Consider the example:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 c es |
v := RTView new.
s1 := (RTEllipse new size: #yourself; color: (Color blue alpha: 0.4)).
s2 := (RTLabel new text: 'Hello World'; height: 10).
c := RTCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: s2;
offset2: 0 @ -30.
es := c elementsOn: #(30 60 80).
es @ RTDraggable.
v addAll: es.
es when: TRMouseClick do: [ :evt | evt element remove. v signalUpdate ].
RTHorizontalLineLayout on: v elements.
v open
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This is the output:
If you click on an element, then the element with its label is properly
removed. Yupi! Leo will be happy with that :-)
The reason is that how can I specify to have s2 above s1? What should I
put in offset2 ? Instead of fiddling with blocks like [:shape1 :shape2
:element | … ] I have introduced RTHorizontalCompositeShape
and RTVerticalCompositeShape just to try whether it make sense or not.
We can have
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 c es |
v := RTView new.
s1 := (RTEllipse new size: #yourself; color: (Color blue alpha: 0.4)).
s2 := (RTLabel new text: 'Hello World'; height: 10).
c := RTHorizontalCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: s2.
es := c elementsOn: #(30 60 80).
es @ RTDraggable.
v addAll: es.
RTHorizontalLineLayout on: v elements.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Replacing Horizontal by Vertical works as expected.
You can also compose these things. Look at that:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 c es |
v := RTView new.
s1 := (RTEllipse new size: #yourself; color: (Color blue alpha: 0.4)).
s2 := (RTLabel new text: 'Hello World'; height: 10).
c2 := RTVerticalCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: s2.
c := RTHorizontalCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: c2.
es := c elementsOn: #(30 60 80).
es @ RTDraggable.
v addAll: es.
RTHorizontalLineLayout on: v elements.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Are we happy with RTVerticalCompositeShape, RTHorizontalCompositeShape
and RTCompositeShape ?
If yes, then RTLabelling (and its problem of passing the view along :-)
will be obsolete.
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
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
--
Leo Perard
5:12 p.m.
I just committed the possibility for element to be fixed or not.
For example:
testAdding
| e1 e2 |
e1 := RTBox element.
e2 := RTBox element.
e1 setAsFixed.
view add: e1.
view add: e2.
self assert: view canvas numberOfFixedShapes = 1.
self assert: view canvas numberOfShapes = 1.
Let me know whether this works as you expect.
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:49 AM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As I use a lot of CompositeShape in my project I will
give you a lot of feedbacks ;-)
I like the composition of composite shape itself. I needed it now it will so much
easier.
But is it possible the put a RTCompositeShape as fixed ? Let me give you an example to
show you
I'm working on a Menu in my vizualisation so i want them fix. But a menu is a label
and its "background' so a composite shape. Can I set it as fixed ?
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
Hi!
I’ve just introduced a new class TRExtensibleLabelShape and TRLabelShape. This will ease
the problem we are experiencing with using labels in a composed shape.
I would like now to discuss about how to compose shapes. This has been a big discussion
for at least 5 years. I propose a solution in this email, I hope this will make most of us
happy :-)
Consider the example:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 c es |
v := RTView new.
s1 := (RTEllipse new size: #yourself; color: (Color blue alpha: 0.4)).
s2 := (RTLabel new text: 'Hello World'; height: 10).
c := RTCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: s2;
offset2: 0 @ -30.
es := c elementsOn: #(30 60 80).
es @ RTDraggable.
v addAll: es.
es when: TRMouseClick do: [ :evt | evt element remove. v signalUpdate ].
RTHorizontalLineLayout on: v elements.
v open
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This is the output:
<Screen Shot 2014-04-24 at 10.15.58 AM.png>
If you click on an element, then the element with its label is properly removed. Yupi!
Leo will be happy with that :-)
The reason is that how can I specify to have s2 above s1? What should I put in offset2 ?
Instead of fiddling with blocks like [:shape1 :shape2 :element | … ] I have introduced
RTHorizontalCompositeShape and RTVerticalCompositeShape just to try whether it make sense
or not.
We can have
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 c es |
v := RTView new.
s1 := (RTEllipse new size: #yourself; color: (Color blue alpha: 0.4)).
s2 := (RTLabel new text: 'Hello World'; height: 10).
c := RTHorizontalCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: s2.
es := c elementsOn: #(30 60 80).
es @ RTDraggable.
v addAll: es.
RTHorizontalLineLayout on: v elements.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<Screen Shot 2014-04-24 at 10.29.45 AM.png>
Replacing Horizontal by Vertical works as expected.
You can also compose these things. Look at that:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 c es |
v := RTView new.
s1 := (RTEllipse new size: #yourself; color: (Color blue alpha: 0.4)).
s2 := (RTLabel new text: 'Hello World'; height: 10).
c2 := RTVerticalCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: s2.
c := RTHorizontalCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: c2.
es := c elementsOn: #(30 60 80).
es @ RTDraggable.
v addAll: es.
RTHorizontalLineLayout on: v elements.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<Screen Shot 2014-04-24 at 10.31.00 AM.png>
Are we happy with RTVerticalCompositeShape, RTHorizontalCompositeShape and
RTCompositeShape ?
If yes, then RTLabelling (and its problem of passing the view along :-) will be
obsolete.
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
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
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
5:29 p.m.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote;wrote:
I just committed the possibility for element to be
fixed or not.
For example:
testAdding
| e1 e2 |
e1 := RTBox element.
e2 := RTBox element.
e1 setAsFixed.
view add: e1.
view add: e2.
self assert: view canvas numberOfFixedShapes = 1.
self assert: view canvas numberOfShapes = 1.
Let me know whether this works as you expect.
No I get this error :
The canvas of the composite shape is nil
--
Leo Perard
6:07 p.m.
There is a bug when I update an element which has a RTCompositeShape with
one of its shape as a RTCompositeShape too
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com
--
Leo Perard
wrote:
I just committed the possibility for element to
be fixed or not.
For example:
testAdding
| e1 e2 |
e1 := RTBox element.
e2 := RTBox element.
e1 setAsFixed.
view add: e1.
view add: e2.
self assert: view canvas numberOfFixedShapes = 1.
self assert: view canvas numberOfShapes = 1.
Let me know whether this works as you expect.
No I get this error :
The canvas of the composite shape is nil
--
Leo Perard
10 p.m.
How can I reproduce this bug? What do you do exactly?
Alexandre
On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There is a bug when I update an element which has a
RTCompositeShape with one of its shape as a RTCompositeShape too
<update-composite-shape.png>
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
I just committed the possibility for element to be fixed or not.
For example:
testAdding
| e1 e2 |
e1 := RTBox element.
e2 := RTBox element.
e1 setAsFixed.
view add: e1.
view add: e2.
self assert: view canvas numberOfFixedShapes = 1.
self assert: view canvas numberOfShapes = 1.
Let me know whether this works as you expect.
No I get this error :
<error-setAsFixed.png>
The canvas of the composite shape is nil
--
Leo Perard
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
25 Apr
25 Apr
10:55 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote;wrote:
How can I reproduce this bug? What do you do exactly?
With this example you can reproduce it easily :
view := RTView new.
box := RTBox new color: Color green.
label := RTLabel new.
el := (RTCompositeShape new shape1: box; shape2: label).
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new shape1: el; shape2: (RTEllipse new
color: Color red)) elementOn: 'Hello World'.
view add: el.
view addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color blue. el
update. view signalUpdate ].
view open
And even if I don't have a composite shape composed with another composite
shape, the update is not good.
--
Leo Perard
27 Apr
27 Apr
9:37 p.m.
Hi!
I’ve worked a bit on the composition.
So far, we have three ways to compose shapes:
1 - RTCompositeShape. This is the composition that is used with +
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 e |
v := RTView new.
s1 := RTBox new size: #yourself; color: Color blue.
s2 := RTEllipse new size: [ :value | value / 2 ]; color: Color red.
e := (RTCompositeShape with: s1 with: s2) elementOn: 50.
v add: e.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
2 - RTHorizontalCompositeShape
Here is the effect of replacing RTCompositeShape by RTHorizontalCompositeShape in the
previous example
3 - RTVerticalCompositeShape
All the shapes composed with RTCompositeShape have the same size. This is useful for
example if you do: (RTBox new + RTLabel) elementOn: ‘Hello World’. You typically want the
label and the box have the same size. When you want to line up shapes, I guess you do not
care of having all the shapes of the same size.
This new behavior for horizontal and vertical should address what you need Leo.
The nice thing, in my opinion, is that we should be able to have any kind of strategy, for
example, a grid of shapes. This is really a matter of small programming.
Let me know if this is what you expect. Just update Roassal for this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Apr 25, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
How can I reproduce this bug? What do you do exactly?
With this example you can reproduce it easily :
view := RTView new.
box := RTBox new color: Color green.
label := RTLabel new.
el := (RTCompositeShape new shape1: box; shape2: label).
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new shape1: el; shape2: (RTEllipse new color: Color
red)) elementOn: 'Hello World'.
view add: el.
view addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color blue. el update.
view signalUpdate ].
view open
And even if I don't have a composite shape composed with another composite shape, the
update is not good.
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
9:59 p.m.
Hi Alex,
This starts to look good.
The next thing is to specify where nested children go :). For example, I
would want to be able to specify that the nested children should be in the
blue rectangle. For this, we would probably need something in the direction
of a ChildrenShape :). Also, the other challenge is to not let the RTNest
make the decision of where to place the children.
What do you say?
Doru
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote;wrote:
Hi!
I’ve worked a bit on the composition.
So far, we have three ways to compose shapes:
1 - RTCompositeShape. This is the composition that is used with +
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 e |
v := RTView new.
s1 := RTBox new size: #yourself; color: Color blue.
s2 := RTEllipse new size: [ :value | value / 2 ]; color: Color red.
e := (RTCompositeShape with: s1 with: s2) elementOn: 50.
v add: e.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
2 - RTHorizontalCompositeShape
Here is the effect of replacing RTCompositeShape
by RTHorizontalCompositeShape in the previous example
3 - RTVerticalCompositeShape
All the shapes composed with RTCompositeShape have the same size. This is
useful for example if you do: (RTBox new + RTLabel) elementOn: ‘Hello
World’. You typically want the label and the box have the same size. When
you want to line up shapes, I guess you do not care of having all the
shapes of the same size.
This new behavior for horizontal and vertical should address what you need
Leo.
The nice thing, in my opinion, is that we should be able to have any kind
of strategy, for example, a grid of shapes. This is really a matter of
small programming.
Let me know if this is what you expect. Just update Roassal for this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Apr 25, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
How can I reproduce this bug? What do you do exactly?
With this example you can reproduce it easily :
view := RTView new.
box := RTBox new color: Color green.
label := RTLabel new.
el := (RTCompositeShape new shape1: box; shape2: label).
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new shape1: el; shape2: (RTEllipse new
color: Color red)) elementOn: 'Hello World'.
view add: el.
view addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color blue. el
update. view signalUpdate ].
view open
And even if I don't have a composite shape composed with another composite
shape, the update is not good.
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
"Every thing has its own flow"
28 Apr
28 Apr
10:22 a.m.
Question : Why need a special shape to composite shapes together and not do
it like Morphic where each morph acts also as a container for other Morphs
? I also like the fact that a morph can have not only children but also a
parent.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi Alex,
This starts to look good.
The next thing is to specify where nested children go :). For example, I
would want to be able to specify that the nested children should be in the
blue rectangle. For this, we would probably need something in the direction
of a ChildrenShape :). Also, the other challenge is to not let the RTNest
make the decision of where to place the children.
What do you say?
Doru
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com
wrote:
Hi!
I’ve worked a bit on the composition.
So far, we have three ways to compose shapes:
1 - RTCompositeShape. This is the composition that is used with +
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 e |
v := RTView new.
s1 := RTBox new size: #yourself; color: Color blue.
s2 := RTEllipse new size: [ :value | value / 2 ]; color: Color red.
e := (RTCompositeShape with: s1 with: s2) elementOn: 50.
v add: e.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
2 - RTHorizontalCompositeShape
Here is the effect of replacing RTCompositeShape
by RTHorizontalCompositeShape in the previous example
3 - RTVerticalCompositeShape
All the shapes composed with RTCompositeShape have the same size. This is
useful for example if you do: (RTBox new + RTLabel) elementOn: ‘Hello
World’. You typically want the label and the box have the same size. When
you want to line up shapes, I guess you do not care of having all the
shapes of the same size.
This new behavior for horizontal and vertical should address what you
need Leo.
The nice thing, in my opinion, is that we should be able to have any kind
of strategy, for example, a grid of shapes. This is really a matter of
small programming.
Let me know if this is what you expect. Just update Roassal for this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Apr 25, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
How can I reproduce this bug? What do you do exactly?
With this example you can reproduce it easily :
view := RTView new.
box := RTBox new color: Color green.
label := RTLabel new.
el := (RTCompositeShape new shape1: box; shape2: label).
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new shape1: el; shape2: (RTEllipse new
color: Color red)) elementOn: 'Hello World'.
view add: el.
view addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color blue. el
update. view signalUpdate ].
view open
And even if I don't have a composite shape composed with another
composite shape, the update is not good.
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
"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
29 Apr
29 Apr
2:01 a.m.
Hi Kilon,
Question : Why need a special shape to composite
shapes together and not do it like Morphic where each morph acts also as a container for
other Morphs ? I also like the fact that a morph can have not only children but also a
parent.
Over the year, I got convinced that having an element a container is a bad idea. Having
containment is a complex thing. Horribly complex.
If you have containment, you will then face the following situations:
- dragging inner elements. What happens when an inner element reaches the border of the
container? Should it extend the container? Push it? Or simply be stopped?
- What do you do with event? Should you propagate events to the parent if the children
has no callback?
- If you want to structure your object differently, let’s say using a quad tree, what do
you do with the nesting relationship?
- What do you do with edges that crosses depth (e.g., going from a top level element to
an inner element)? How do you order edges? Using a z-order I guess… again more complexity
Answering all these questions (as I did with Roassal1), inevitably brings complexity to
the whole system.
Roassal2 does not have containment, and the root of the element and shape hierarchy is
quite small, which was not the case for Roassal1 and Mondrian.
I have been thinking a lot (really a lot) about this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi Alex,
This starts to look good.
The next thing is to specify where nested children go :). For example, I would want to be
able to specify that the nested children should be in the blue rectangle. For this, we
would probably need something in the direction of a ChildrenShape :). Also, the other
challenge is to not let the RTNest make the decision of where to place the children.
What do you say?
Doru
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
Hi!
I’ve worked a bit on the composition.
So far, we have three ways to compose shapes:
1 - RTCompositeShape. This is the composition that is used with +
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 e |
v := RTView new.
s1 := RTBox new size: #yourself; color: Color blue.
s2 := RTEllipse new size: [ :value | value / 2 ]; color: Color red.
e := (RTCompositeShape with: s1 with: s2) elementOn: 50.
v add: e.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.30.40 PM.png>
2 - RTHorizontalCompositeShape
Here is the effect of replacing RTCompositeShape by RTHorizontalCompositeShape in the
previous example
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.32 PM.png>
3 - RTVerticalCompositeShape
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.52 PM.png>
All the shapes composed with RTCompositeShape have the same size. This is useful for
example if you do: (RTBox new + RTLabel) elementOn: ‘Hello World’. You typically want the
label and the box have the same size. When you want to line up shapes, I guess you do not
care of having all the shapes of the same size.
This new behavior for horizontal and vertical should address what you need Leo.
The nice thing, in my opinion, is that we should be able to have any kind of strategy,
for example, a grid of shapes. This is really a matter of small programming.
Let me know if this is what you expect. Just update Roassal for this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Apr 25, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alexandre
Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
How can I reproduce this bug? What do you do exactly?
With this example you can reproduce it easily :
view := RTView new.
box := RTBox new color: Color green.
label := RTLabel new.
el := (RTCompositeShape new shape1: box; shape2: label).
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new shape1: el; shape2: (RTEllipse new color: Color
red)) elementOn: 'Hello World'.
view add: el.
view addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color blue. el update.
view signalUpdate ].
view open
And even if I don't have a composite shape composed with another composite shape, the
update is not good.
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
"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
11:06 a.m.
I am not against your philosophy on this, but that would not mean a
different class for every different kind of problem you will try to solve
in composition ? Wont this make the system more complex for the user ,
having to use a different class for a different kind of composition ?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote;wrote:
Hi Kilon,
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
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
Question : Why need a special shape to composite
shapes together and not
do it like Morphic where each morph acts also as a
container for other
Morphs ? I also like the fact that a morph can have not only children but
also a parent.
Over the year, I got convinced that having an element a container is a bad
idea. Having containment is a complex thing. Horribly complex.
If you have containment, you will then face the following situations:
- dragging inner elements. What happens when an inner element
reaches the border of the container? Should it extend the container? Push
it? Or simply be stopped?
- What do you do with event? Should you propagate events to the
parent if the children has no callback?
- If you want to structure your object differently, let’s say
using a quad tree, what do you do with the nesting relationship?
- What do you do with edges that crosses depth (e.g., going from a
top level element to an inner element)? How do you order edges? Using a
z-order I guess… again more complexity
Answering all these questions (as I did with Roassal1), inevitably brings
complexity to the whole system.
Roassal2 does not have containment, and the root of the element and shape
hierarchy is quite small, which was not the case for Roassal1 and Mondrian.
I have been thinking a lot (really a lot) about this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>
wrote:
Hi Alex,
This starts to look good.
The next thing is to specify where nested children go :). For example, I
would
want to be able to specify that the nested children should be in the
blue rectangle. For this, we would probably need something in the direction
of a ChildrenShape :). Also, the other challenge is to not let the RTNest
make the decision of where to place the children.
What do you say?
Doru
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>
wrote:
Hi!
I’ve worked a bit on the composition.
So far, we have three ways to compose shapes:
1 - RTCompositeShape. This is the composition that is used with +
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 e |
v := RTView new.
s1 := RTBox new size: #yourself; color: Color blue.
s2 := RTEllipse new size: [ :value | value / 2 ]; color: Color red.
e := (RTCompositeShape with: s1 with: s2) elementOn: 50.
v add: e.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.30.40 PM.png>
2 - RTHorizontalCompositeShape
Here is the effect of replacing RTCompositeShape by
RTHorizontalCompositeShape in
the previous example
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.32 PM.png>
3 - RTVerticalCompositeShape
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.52 PM.png>
All the shapes composed with RTCompositeShape have the same size. This
is useful
for example if you do: (RTBox new + RTLabel) elementOn: ‘Hello
World’. You typically want the label and the box have the same size. When
you want to line up shapes, I guess you do not care of having all the
shapes of the same size.
This new behavior for horizontal and vertical should address what you
need Leo.
The nice thing, in my opinion, is that we should be able to have any
kind of
strategy, for example, a grid of shapes. This is really a matter of
small programming.
Let me know if this is what you expect. Just update Roassal for this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Apr 25, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
> How can I reproduce this bug? What do you do
exactly?
> With this example you can reproduce it easily :
>
> view := RTView new.
> box := RTBox new color: Color green.
> label := RTLabel new.
> el := (RTCompositeShape new shape1: box; shape2: label).
> el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new shape1: el; shape2: (RTEllipse
new
color: Color red)) elementOn: 'Hello World'.
> view add: el.
>
> view addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color blue. el
update. view signalUpdate ].
>
> view open
>
> And even if I don't have a composite shape composed with another
composite
shape, the update is not good.
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
"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
11:49 a.m.
I am not against your philosophy on this, but that
would not mean a different class for every different kind of problem you will try to solve
in composition ? Wont this make the system more complex for the user , having to use a
different class for a different kind of composition ?
Yes, one class per family of problem to solve. I do not think this will make it more
complex.
The situation could be worse: having one method per family of problem, and all the method
in the same class. You end up with an overly complex system.
Alexandre
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
Hi Kilon,
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Question : Why need a special shape to composite
shapes together and not do it like Morphic where each morph acts also as a container for
other Morphs ? I also like the fact that a morph can have not only children but also a
parent.
Over the year, I got convinced that having an element a container is a bad idea. Having
containment is a complex thing. Horribly complex.
If you have containment, you will then face the following situations:
- dragging inner elements. What happens when an inner element reaches the border
of the container? Should it extend the container? Push it? Or simply be stopped?
- What do you do with event? Should you propagate events to the parent if the
children has no callback?
- If you want to structure your object differently, let’s say using a quad tree,
what do you do with the nesting relationship?
- What do you do with edges that crosses depth (e.g., going from a top level
element to an inner element)? How do you order edges? Using a z-order I guess… again more
complexity
Answering all these questions (as I did with Roassal1), inevitably brings complexity to
the whole system.
Roassal2 does not have containment, and the root of the element and shape hierarchy is
quite small, which was not the case for Roassal1 and Mondrian.
I have been thinking a lot (really a lot) about this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi Alex,
This starts to look good.
The next thing is to specify where nested children go :). For example, I would want to be
able to specify that the nested children should be in the blue rectangle. For this, we
would probably need something in the direction of a ChildrenShape :). Also, the other
challenge is to not let the RTNest make the decision of where to place the children.
What do you say?
Doru
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
Hi!
I’ve worked a bit on the composition.
So far, we have three ways to compose shapes:
1 - RTCompositeShape. This is the composition that is used with +
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 e |
v := RTView new.
s1 := RTBox new size: #yourself; color: Color blue.
s2 := RTEllipse new size: [ :value | value / 2 ]; color: Color red.
e := (RTCompositeShape with: s1 with: s2) elementOn: 50.
v add: e.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.30.40 PM.png>
2 - RTHorizontalCompositeShape
Here is the effect of replacing RTCompositeShape by RTHorizontalCompositeShape in the
previous example
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.32 PM.png>
3 - RTVerticalCompositeShape
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.52 PM.png>
All the shapes composed with RTCompositeShape have the same size. This is useful for
example if you do: (RTBox new + RTLabel) elementOn: ‘Hello World’. You typically want the
label and the box have the same size. When you want to line up shapes, I guess you do not
care of having all the shapes of the same size.
This new behavior for horizontal and vertical should address what you need Leo.
The nice thing, in my opinion, is that we should be able to have any kind of strategy,
for example, a grid of shapes. This is really a matter of small programming.
Let me know if this is what you expect. Just update Roassal for this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Apr 25, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
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 On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alexandre
Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
How can I reproduce this bug? What do you do exactly?
With this example you can reproduce it easily :
view := RTView new.
box := RTBox new color: Color green.
label := RTLabel new.
el := (RTCompositeShape new shape1: box; shape2: label).
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new shape1: el; shape2: (RTEllipse new color: Color
red)) elementOn: 'Hello World'.
view add: el.
view addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color blue. el update.
view signalUpdate ].
view open
And even if I don't have a composite shape composed with another composite shape, the
update is not good.
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
"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
12:03 p.m.
fair enough. Please carry on, I find the discussion very interesting and I
really like what you have done with Roassal. Is this going to carry to
Mondrian as well ?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote;wrote:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
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
I am not
against your philosophy on this, but that would not mean a
different class for
every different kind of problem you will try to solve
in composition ? Wont this make the system more complex for the user ,
having to use a different class for a different kind of composition ?
Yes, one class per family of problem to solve. I do not think this will
make it more complex.
The situation could be worse: having one method per family of problem, and
all the method in the same class. You end up with an overly complex system.
Alexandre
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>
wrote:
Hi Kilon,
> Question : Why need a special shape to composite shapes together and
not do
it like Morphic where each morph acts also as a container for other
Morphs ? I also like the fact that a morph can have not only children but
also a parent.
Over the year, I got convinced that having an element a container is a
bad idea.
Having containment is a complex thing. Horribly complex.
If you have containment, you will then face the
following situations:
- dragging inner elements. What happens when an inner element
reaches the
border of the container? Should it extend the container? Push
it? Or simply be stopped?
- What do you do with event? Should you
propagate events to the
parent if the children has no callback?
- If you want to structure your object
differently, let’s say
using a quad tree, what do you do with the nesting
relationship?
- What do you do with edges that crosses
depth (e.g., going from
a top level element to an inner element)? How do you order
edges? Using a
z-order I guess… again more complexity
Answering all these questions (as I did with Roassal1), inevitably
brings
complexity to the whole system.
Roassal2 does not have containment, and the root
of the element and
shape hierarchy is quite small, which was not the case for
Roassal1 and
Mondrian.
I have been thinking a lot (really a lot) about this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>
wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> This starts to look good.
>
> The next thing is to specify where nested children go :). For example,
I
would want to be able to specify that the nested children should be in
the blue rectangle. For this, we would probably need something in the
direction of a ChildrenShape :). Also, the other challenge is to not let
the RTNest make the decision of where to place the children.
>
> What do you say?
>
> Doru
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I’ve worked a bit on the composition.
> So far, we have three ways to compose shapes:
>
> 1 - RTCompositeShape. This is the composition that is used with +
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> | v s1 s2 e |
> v := RTView new.
> s1 := RTBox new size: #yourself; color: Color blue.
> s2 := RTEllipse new size: [ :value | value / 2 ]; color: Color red.
> e := (RTCompositeShape with: s1 with: s2) elementOn: 50.
> v add: e.
> v
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> <Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.30.40 PM.png>
>
> 2 - RTHorizontalCompositeShape
> Here is the effect of replacing RTCompositeShape by
RTHorizontalCompositeShape in the previous example
> <Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.32
PM.png>
>
> 3 - RTVerticalCompositeShape
> <Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.52 PM.png>
>
> All the shapes composed with RTCompositeShape have the same size. This
is
useful for example if you do: (RTBox new + RTLabel) elementOn: ‘Hello
World’. You typically want the label and the box have the same size. When
you want to line up shapes, I guess you do not care of having all the
shapes of the same size.
>
> This new behavior for horizontal and vertical should address what you
need
Leo.
>
> The nice thing, in my opinion, is that we should be able to have any
kind of
strategy, for example, a grid of shapes. This is really a matter of
small programming.
>
> Let me know if this is what you expect. Just update Roassal for this.
>
> Cheers,
> Alexandre
>
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
>> How can I reproduce this bug? What do
you do exactly?
>> With this example you can reproduce it easily :
>>
>> view := RTView new.
>> box := RTBox new color: Color green.
>> label := RTLabel new.
>> el := (RTCompositeShape new shape1: box; shape2: label).
>> el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new shape1: el; shape2: (RTEllipse
new
color: Color red)) elementOn: 'Hello World'.
>> view add: el.
>>
>> view addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color blue.
el update. view signalUpdate ].
>>
>> view open
>>
>> And even if I don't have a composite shape composed with another
composite shape, the update is not good.
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
"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
12:07 p.m.
Is this going to carry to Mondrian as well ?
I do not understand this question :-)
Roassal has a Mondrian builder in it, the class RTMondrianViewBuilder…
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
12:23 p.m.
I mean whether this way of composition of shapes will be also available to
Mondrian.
The way I understand it so far, is that Mondrian is a higher level library
based on Roassal. It can do things that Roassal can in fewer steps focusing
on visualization of object structures. So as Roassal needs to deal with
complex shapes so does Mondrian. Am I correct ?
Do you mean that RTMondrianViewBuilder already acts as the compositor of
complex shapes for Mondrian ? If yes that means that Mondrian will not be
affected by these improvements ?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote;wrote:
Is this going
to carry to Mondrian as well ?
I do not understand this question :-)
Roassal has a Mondrian builder in it, the class RTMondrianViewBuilder…
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
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
5:49 p.m.
I mean whether this way of composition of shapes will
be also available to Mondrian.
Could be. We have to see. Mondrian is (really) good only for a restricted set of
situations.
The way I understand it so far, is that Mondrian is a
higher level library based on Roassal. It can do things that Roassal can in fewer steps
focusing on visualization of object structures. So as Roassal needs to deal with complex
shapes so does Mondrian. Am I correct ?
Yes, making Roassal things available in Mondrian is not a big deal.
Do you mean that RTMondrianViewBuilder already acts as
the compositor of complex shapes for Mondrian ? If yes that means that Mondrian will not
be affected by these improvements ?
The class RTMondrianViewBuilder is simply a builder (i.e., generate low Roassal
instruction from a specification tied to a particular model). It does not compose shapes,
but instead generates elements with shapes (as all the builder do).
Alexandre
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Is this going to carry to Mondrian as well ?
I do not understand this question :-)
Roassal has a Mondrian builder in it, the class RTMondrianViewBuilder…
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
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
28 Apr
28 Apr
10:26 a.m.
Great excatly the kind of thing I expected.
I'm agree with Tudor, the nested element on a CompositeElement are really
not great now. I maked some tests last weeks but no one was working.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi Alex,
This starts to look good.
The next thing is to specify where nested children go :). For example, I
would want to be able to specify that the nested children should be in the
blue rectangle. For this, we would probably need something in the direction
of a ChildrenShape :). Also, the other challenge is to not let the RTNest
make the decision of where to place the children.
What do you say?
Doru
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com
--
Leo Perard
wrote:
Hi!
I’ve worked a bit on the composition.
So far, we have three ways to compose shapes:
1 - RTCompositeShape. This is the composition that is used with +
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 e |
v := RTView new.
s1 := RTBox new size: #yourself; color: Color blue.
s2 := RTEllipse new size: [ :value | value / 2 ]; color: Color red.
e := (RTCompositeShape with: s1 with: s2) elementOn: 50.
v add: e.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
2 - RTHorizontalCompositeShape
Here is the effect of replacing RTCompositeShape
by RTHorizontalCompositeShape in the previous example
3 - RTVerticalCompositeShape
All the shapes composed with RTCompositeShape have the same size. This is
useful for example if you do: (RTBox new + RTLabel) elementOn: ‘Hello
World’. You typically want the label and the box have the same size. When
you want to line up shapes, I guess you do not care of having all the
shapes of the same size.
This new behavior for horizontal and vertical should address what you
need Leo.
The nice thing, in my opinion, is that we should be able to have any kind
of strategy, for example, a grid of shapes. This is really a matter of
small programming.
Let me know if this is what you expect. Just update Roassal for this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Apr 25, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
How can I reproduce this bug? What do you do exactly?
With this example you can reproduce it easily :
view := RTView new.
box := RTBox new color: Color green.
label := RTLabel new.
el := (RTCompositeShape new shape1: box; shape2: label).
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new shape1: el; shape2: (RTEllipse new
color: Color red)) elementOn: 'Hello World'.
view add: el.
view addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color blue. el
update. view signalUpdate ].
view open
And even if I don't have a composite shape composed with another
composite shape, the update is not good.
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
"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
12:09 p.m.
Leo, can you provide an example of what was not working?
Alexandre
Le 28-04-2014 à 5:26, Leo Perard
<leo.perard(a)gmail.com> a écrit :
Great excatly the kind of thing I expected.
I'm agree with Tudor, the nested element on a CompositeElement are really not great
now. I maked some tests last weeks but no one was working.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Tudor Girba
<tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi Alex,
This starts to look good.
The next thing is to specify where nested children go :). For example, I would want to be
able to specify that the nested children should be in the blue rectangle. For this, we
would probably need something in the direction of a ChildrenShape :). Also, the other
challenge is to not let the RTNest make the decision of where to place the children.
What do you say?
Doru
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
Hi!
I’ve worked a bit on the composition.
So far, we have three ways to compose shapes:
1 - RTCompositeShape. This is the composition that is used with +
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 e |
v := RTView new.
s1 := RTBox new size: #yourself; color: Color blue.
s2 := RTEllipse new size: [ :value | value / 2 ]; color: Color red.
e := (RTCompositeShape with: s1 with: s2) elementOn: 50.
v add: e.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.30.40 PM.png>
2 - RTHorizontalCompositeShape
Here is the effect of replacing RTCompositeShape by RTHorizontalCompositeShape in the
previous example
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.32 PM.png>
3 - RTVerticalCompositeShape
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.52 PM.png>
All the shapes composed with RTCompositeShape have the same size. This is useful for
example if you do: (RTBox new + RTLabel) elementOn: ‘Hello World’. You typically want the
label and the box have the same size. When you want to line up shapes, I guess you do not
care of having all the shapes of the same size.
This new behavior for horizontal and vertical should address what you need Leo.
The nice thing, in my opinion, is that we should be able to have any kind of strategy,
for example, a grid of shapes. This is really a matter of small programming.
Let me know if this is what you expect. Just update Roassal for this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
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 On Apr 25, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Leo Perard
<leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>
wrote:
How can I reproduce this bug? What do you do exactly?
With this example you can reproduce it easily :
view := RTView new.
box := RTBox new color: Color green.
label := RTLabel new.
el := (RTCompositeShape new shape1: box; shape2: label).
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new shape1: el; shape2: (RTEllipse new color: Color
red)) elementOn: 'Hello World'.
view add: el.
view addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color blue. el update.
view signalUpdate ].
view open
And even if I don't have a composite shape composed with another composite shape, the
update is not good.
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
1:08 p.m.
Sure.
view := RTView new.
container := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new
shape1: RTBox new;
shape2: RTLabel new)
elementOn: 'Container'.
els := (RTBox new size: 9; color: Color red) elementsOn: (1 to: 16).
container @ RTDraggable.
RTNest new layout: RTGridLayout; on: container nest: els.
view add: container; addAll: els.
view open
I tried to "cheat" with the order of the calls. I nested the els just with
the box and then I created a composite shape with + but no success.
view := RTView new.
container := RTBox new elementOn: 'Container'.
els := (RTBox new size: 9; color: Color red) elementsOn: (1 to: 16).
RTNest new layout: RTGridLayout; on: container nest: els.
container + RTLabel.
container @ RTDraggable.
view add: container; addAll: els.
view open
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote;wrote:
Leo, can you provide an example of what was not
working?
Alexandre
Le 28-04-2014 à 5:26, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> a écrit :
Great excatly the kind of thing I expected.
I'm agree with Tudor, the nested element on a CompositeElement are really
not great now. I maked some tests last weeks but no one was working.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
--
Leo Perard
Hi Alex,
This starts to look good.
The next thing is to specify where nested children go :). For example, I
would want to be able to specify that the nested children should be in the
blue rectangle. For this, we would probably need something in the direction
of a ChildrenShape :). Also, the other challenge is to not let the RTNest
make the decision of where to place the children.
What do you say?
Doru
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
Hi!
I’ve worked a bit on the composition.
So far, we have three ways to compose shapes:
1 - RTCompositeShape. This is the composition that is used with +
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 e |
v := RTView new.
s1 := RTBox new size: #yourself; color: Color blue.
s2 := RTEllipse new size: [ :value | value / 2 ]; color: Color red.
e := (RTCompositeShape with: s1 with: s2) elementOn: 50.
v add: e.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.30.40 PM.png>
2 - RTHorizontalCompositeShape
Here is the effect of replacing RTCompositeShape
by RTHorizontalCompositeShape in the previous example
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.32 PM.png>
3 - RTVerticalCompositeShape
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.52 PM.png>
All the shapes composed with RTCompositeShape have the same size. This
is useful for example if you do: (RTBox new + RTLabel) elementOn: ‘Hello
World’. You typically want the label and the box have the same size. When
you want to line up shapes, I guess you do not care of having all the
shapes of the same size.
This new behavior for horizontal and vertical should address what you
need Leo.
The nice thing, in my opinion, is that we should be able to have any
kind of strategy, for example, a grid of shapes. This is really a matter of
small programming.
Let me know if this is what you expect. Just update Roassal for this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Apr 25, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
How can I reproduce this bug? What do you do exactly?
With this example you can reproduce it easily :
view := RTView new.
box := RTBox new color: Color green.
label := RTLabel new.
el := (RTCompositeShape new shape1: box; shape2: label).
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new shape1: el; shape2: (RTEllipse
new color: Color red)) elementOn: 'Hello World'.
view add: el.
view addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color blue. el
update. view signalUpdate ].
view open
And even if I don't have a composite shape composed with another
composite shape, the update is not good.
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
"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
29 Apr
29 Apr
2:35 a.m.
I have the impression you need to manually build your composed shape, with a dedicated
builder (i.e., subclass of RTBuilder).
What are you trying to achieve?
Alexandre
On Apr 28, 2014, at 8:08 AM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Sure.
view := RTView new.
container := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new
shape1: RTBox new;
shape2: RTLabel new)
elementOn: 'Container'.
els := (RTBox new size: 9; color: Color red) elementsOn: (1 to: 16).
container @ RTDraggable.
RTNest new layout: RTGridLayout; on: container nest: els.
view add: container; addAll: els.
view open
I tried to "cheat" with the order of the calls. I nested the els just with the
box and then I created a composite shape with + but no success.
view := RTView new.
container := RTBox new elementOn: 'Container'.
els := (RTBox new size: 9; color: Color red) elementsOn: (1 to: 16).
RTNest new layout: RTGridLayout; on: container nest: els.
container + RTLabel.
container @ RTDraggable.
view add: container; addAll: els.
view open
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>
wrote:
Leo, can you provide an example of what was not working?
Alexandre
Le 28-04-2014 à 5:26, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> a écrit :
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Great excatly the kind of thing I expected.
I'm agree with Tudor, the nested element on a CompositeElement are really not great
now. I maked some tests last weeks but no one was working.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi Alex,
This starts to look good.
The next thing is to specify where nested children go :). For example, I would want to be
able to specify that the nested children should be in the blue rectangle. For this, we
would probably need something in the direction of a ChildrenShape :). Also, the other
challenge is to not let the RTNest make the decision of where to place the children.
What do you say?
Doru
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
Hi!
I’ve worked a bit on the composition.
So far, we have three ways to compose shapes:
1 - RTCompositeShape. This is the composition that is used with +
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 e |
v := RTView new.
s1 := RTBox new size: #yourself; color: Color blue.
s2 := RTEllipse new size: [ :value | value / 2 ]; color: Color red.
e := (RTCompositeShape with: s1 with: s2) elementOn: 50.
v add: e.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.30.40 PM.png>
2 - RTHorizontalCompositeShape
Here is the effect of replacing RTCompositeShape by RTHorizontalCompositeShape in the
previous example
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.32 PM.png>
3 - RTVerticalCompositeShape
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.52 PM.png>
All the shapes composed with RTCompositeShape have the same size. This is useful for
example if you do: (RTBox new + RTLabel) elementOn: ‘Hello World’. You typically want the
label and the box have the same size. When you want to line up shapes, I guess you do not
care of having all the shapes of the same size.
This new behavior for horizontal and vertical should address what you need Leo.
The nice thing, in my opinion, is that we should be able to have any kind of strategy,
for example, a grid of shapes. This is really a matter of small programming.
Let me know if this is what you expect. Just update Roassal for this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Apr 25, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alexandre
Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
How can I reproduce this bug? What do you do exactly?
With this example you can reproduce it easily :
view := RTView new.
box := RTBox new color: Color green.
label := RTLabel new.
el := (RTCompositeShape new shape1: box; shape2: label).
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new shape1: el; shape2: (RTEllipse new color: Color
red)) elementOn: 'Hello World'.
view add: el.
view addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color blue. el update.
view signalUpdate ].
view open
And even if I don't have a composite shape composed with another composite shape, the
update is not good.
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
"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
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
10:42 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote;wrote:
I have the impression you need to manually build your
composed shape, with
a dedicated builder (i.e., subclass of RTBuilder).
What are you trying to achieve?
Alexandre
I don't think I need a composed shape builder. I just want to play
dynamicly with composite shapes.
I don't see the for which features the builder could be usefull ?
--
Cheers,
Leo Perard
University of Lille 1
1:52 a.m.
I was expecting this question :-)
Two problems I see:
- layout are made to work with elements, not shape. A shape does not have a position
- RTNest is made to work with elements
I will think about it.
Alexandre
On Apr 27, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi Alex,
This starts to look good.
The next thing is to specify where nested children go :). For example, I would want to be
able to specify that the nested children should be in the blue rectangle. For this, we
would probably need something in the direction of a ChildrenShape :). Also, the other
challenge is to not let the RTNest make the decision of where to place the children.
What do you say?
Doru
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
Hi!
I’ve worked a bit on the composition.
So far, we have three ways to compose shapes:
1 - RTCompositeShape. This is the composition that is used with +
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 e |
v := RTView new.
s1 := RTBox new size: #yourself; color: Color blue.
s2 := RTEllipse new size: [ :value | value / 2 ]; color: Color red.
e := (RTCompositeShape with: s1 with: s2) elementOn: 50.
v add: e.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.30.40 PM.png>
2 - RTHorizontalCompositeShape
Here is the effect of replacing RTCompositeShape by RTHorizontalCompositeShape in the
previous example
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.32 PM.png>
3 - RTVerticalCompositeShape
<Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.33.52 PM.png>
All the shapes composed with RTCompositeShape have the same size. This is useful for
example if you do: (RTBox new + RTLabel) elementOn: ‘Hello World’. You typically want the
label and the box have the same size. When you want to line up shapes, I guess you do not
care of having all the shapes of the same size.
This new behavior for horizontal and vertical should address what you need Leo.
The nice thing, in my opinion, is that we should be able to have any kind of strategy,
for example, a grid of shapes. This is really a matter of small programming.
Let me know if this is what you expect. Just update Roassal for this.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Apr 25, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alexandre
Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
How can I reproduce this bug? What do you do exactly?
With this example you can reproduce it easily :
view := RTView new.
box := RTBox new color: Color green.
label := RTLabel new.
el := (RTCompositeShape new shape1: box; shape2: label).
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new shape1: el; shape2: (RTEllipse new color: Color
red)) elementOn: 'Hello World'.
view add: el.
view addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color blue. el update.
view signalUpdate ].
view open
And even if I don't have a composite shape composed with another composite shape, the
update is not good.
--
Leo Perard
_______________________________________________
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
"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 
5:09 p.m.
I found 2 bugs when I tried to change color of one of the shape in the
RTCompositeShape
*view := RTView new.*
*el := (RTCompositeShape new*
* shape1: RTBox new;*
* shape2: RTLabel new)*
* elementOn: 'Element'. *
*view add: el.*
*view canvas addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape1 color: Color red.
el update. view canvas signalUpdate ].*
*view open*
The color of the box is changed but it does not have the good size anymore.
The second one is with one of the shape is a RTCompositeShape itself
*view := RTView new.*
*el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new*
* shape1: (RTCompositeShape new shape1: RTBox new; shape2: RTLabel new);*
* shape2: (RTEllipse new size: 10; color: Color blue))*
* elementOn: 'Element'. *
*view add: el.*
*view canvas addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color red.
el update. view canvas signalUpdate ].*
*view open*
Raise an error :
RTCompositeShape>>#updateFor:trachelShape: is missing
--
Cheers,
Leo Perard
University of Lille 1
29 Apr
29 Apr
2:24 a.m.
view := RTView new.
el := (RTCompositeShape new
shape1: RTBox new;
shape2: RTLabel new)
elementOn: 'Element'.
view add: el.
view canvas addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape1 color: Color red. el
update. view canvas signalUpdate ].
view open
The color of the box is changed but it does not have the good size anymore.
Roassal shapes have been designed to be factory of Trachel shapes. At the end, everything
boils down into trachel shapes, which are agnostic to your model.
If you want to change the color, you should directly talk to the trachel shape, as with:
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-=
view := RTView new.
el := (RTCompositeShape new
shape1: RTBox new;
shape2: RTLabel new)
elementOn: 'Element'.
view add: el.
view canvas addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el trachelShape shape1 color: Color red.
view signalUpdate ].
view open
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-=
The second one is with one of the shape is a
RTCompositeShape itself
view := RTView new.
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new
shape1: (RTCompositeShape new shape1: RTBox new; shape2: RTLabel new);
shape2: (RTEllipse new size: 10; color: Color blue))
elementOn: 'Element'.
view add: el.
view canvas addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el shape shape2 color: Color red. el
update. view canvas signalUpdate ].
view open
Actually, this is a bug in Roassal2, and this is the same problem than in your previous
example.
You can easily bypass this bug by directly talking to the trachel shape.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
view := RTView new.
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new
shape1: (RTCompositeShape new shape1: RTBox new; shape2: RTLabel new);
shape2: (RTEllipse new size: 10; color: Color blue))
elementOn: 'Element'.
view add: el.
view canvas addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el trachelShape shape2 color: Color red.
view signalUpdate ].
view open
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Cheers,
Alexandre
Raise an error :
<subclassResponsibility-RTCompositeShape.png>
RTCompositeShape>>#updateFor:trachelShape: is missing
--
Cheers,
Leo Perard
University of Lille 1
_______________________________________________
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
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
10:36 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote;wrote:
view := RTView new.
el := (RTHorizontalCompositeShape new
shape1: (RTCompositeShape new shape1: RTBox new; shape2: RTLabel
new);
shape2: (RTEllipse new size: 10; color: Color blue))
elementOn: 'Element'.
view add: el.
view canvas addMenu: 'Color' callback: [ el trachelShape shape2 color:
Color red. view signalUpdate ].
view open
Ok cool I will do it like that
--
Cheers,
Leo Perard
University of Lille 1
2:14 a.m.
Well, you can always stack up elements. Consider this example and its cool animation:
-=-=-=—=-=-=-=—=-=-=-=—=-=-=-=—=
| v shape elements |
v := RTView new.
shape := RTEllipse new color: (Color purple alpha: 0.1); size: #yourself.
elements := shape elementsOn: (1 to: 100 by: 10).
v addAll: elements.
v canvas addMenu: 'Right!' callback: [ elements do: [ :e | RTLinearMove new to: e
model @ 0 during: 1 on: e in: v ] ].
v canvas addMenu: 'Left!' callback: [ elements do: [ :e | RTLinearMove new to: e
model negated @ 0 during: 1 on: e in: v ] ].
v canvas addMenu: 'Up!' callback: [ elements do: [ :e | RTLinearMove new to: 0 @
e model negated during: 1 on: e in: v ] ].
v canvas addMenu: 'Down!' callback: [ elements do: [ :e | RTLinearMove new to: 0
@ e model during: 1 on: e in: v ] ].
v
-=-=-=—=-=-=-=—=-=-=-=—=-=-=-=—=
The problem that remains open is how to have other shapes than a simple circle, label,
box, or svg path for an element.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openInWorld.com> wrote:
At first glance that seems a little restrictive. I
immediately think of trying to make a bulleye target as a composite of concentric circles
of different sizes. Though I can't think of any other examples off hand.
cheers -ben
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
24 Apr
24 Apr
5:13 p.m.
Hop few points and questions.
If I don't want one that one of the scales its size on the element size on
can I do that ?
And I think there is some bug in the layout of composite shape composed
with others composite shape.
On the screenshot I would like :
- the red ellipse do not scale and keep the size I initialized
- the layout don't do creepy things ^^
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Leo Perard <leo.perard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As I use a lot of CompositeShape in my project I will
give you a lot of
feedbacks ;-)
I like the composition of composite shape itself. I needed it now it will
so much easier.
But is it possible the put a RTCompositeShape as fixed ? Let me give you
an example to show you
I'm working on a Menu in my vizualisation so i want them fix. But a menu
is a label and its "background' so a composite shape. Can I set it as fixed
?
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
--
Leo Perard
Hi!
I’ve just introduced a new class TRExtensibleLabelShape and TRLabelShape.
This will ease the problem we are experiencing with using labels in a
composed shape.
I would like now to discuss about how to compose shapes. This has been a
big discussion for at least 5 years. I propose a solution in this email, I
hope this will make most of us happy :-)
Consider the example:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 c es |
v := RTView new.
s1 := (RTEllipse new size: #yourself; color: (Color blue alpha: 0.4)).
s2 := (RTLabel new text: 'Hello World'; height: 10).
c := RTCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: s2;
offset2: 0 @ -30.
es := c elementsOn: #(30 60 80).
es @ RTDraggable.
v addAll: es.
es when: TRMouseClick do: [ :evt | evt element remove. v signalUpdate ].
RTHorizontalLineLayout on: v elements.
v open
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This is the output:
If you click on an element, then the element with its label is properly
removed. Yupi! Leo will be happy with that :-)
The reason is that how can I specify to have s2 above s1? What should I
put in offset2 ? Instead of fiddling with blocks like [:shape1 :shape2
:element | … ] I have introduced RTHorizontalCompositeShape
and RTVerticalCompositeShape just to try whether it make sense or not.
We can have
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 c es |
v := RTView new.
s1 := (RTEllipse new size: #yourself; color: (Color blue alpha: 0.4)).
s2 := (RTLabel new text: 'Hello World'; height: 10).
c := RTHorizontalCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: s2.
es := c elementsOn: #(30 60 80).
es @ RTDraggable.
v addAll: es.
RTHorizontalLineLayout on: v elements.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Replacing Horizontal by Vertical works as expected.
You can also compose these things. Look at that:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| v s1 s2 c es |
v := RTView new.
s1 := (RTEllipse new size: #yourself; color: (Color blue alpha: 0.4)).
s2 := (RTLabel new text: 'Hello World'; height: 10).
c2 := RTVerticalCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: s2.
c := RTHorizontalCompositeShape new
shape1: s1;
shape2: c2.
es := c elementsOn: #(30 60 80).
es @ RTDraggable.
v addAll: es.
RTHorizontalLineLayout on: v elements.
v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Are we happy with RTVerticalCompositeShape, RTHorizontalCompositeShape
and RTCompositeShape ?
If yes, then RTLabelling (and its problem of passing the view along :-)
will be obsolete.
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
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
--
Leo Perard
10:01 p.m.
If I don't want one that one of the scales its
size on the element size on can I do that ?
What do you want exactly? That the red dot has always the same size?
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
25 Apr
25 Apr
10:34 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote;wrote:
Exactly
If I don't
want one that one of the scales its size on the element size
on can I do that ?
What do you want exactly? That the red dot has always the same size?
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
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
--
Leo Perard
3648
days inactive
3653
days old
30 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Ben Coman -
kilon alios -
Leo Perard -
Tudor Girba