Blueprint diagrams
Locked
 
|
Hi,
is blueprint diagram only available in moose panel? Because I want to use it outside of Moose, so I wander if there is some Roassal builder for that. Uko _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
It is available only in the context of a FAMIXType. Take a look at viewBlueprintOn: Doru On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi, "Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Uko2
It would be great to have the class blueprint available for plain Pharo class. This should not be complicated. Creating a builder is indeed the way to do it.
Alexandre > Le 28-08-2014 à 4:49, Yuriy Tymchuk <[hidden email]> a écrit : > > Hi, > > is blueprint diagram only available in moose panel? Because I want to use it outside of Moose, so I wander if there is some Roassal builder for that. > > > Uko > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
I do not see why you would create a builder for this. I think a builder is only useful when you want to customize something. Or would you like to customize something in the blueprint? Doru
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote: It would be great to have the class blueprint available for plain Pharo class. This should not be complicated. Creating a builder is indeed the way to do it. "Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Theoretically - yes, but also the idea of builder is to build some visualisation. As opposing to layout which moves things around. Eg. we have to create groups for methods and so on. So builder will do this for us.
Uko On 29 Aug 2014, at 20:31, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
If it is not a builder, then it is a simple script.
My stake on this is that you never know whether you want to customize a view or not. Having a builder is also a way to compose with other visualization. Alexandre On Aug 29, 2014, at 2:31 PM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote: > I do not see why you would create a builder for this. I think a builder is only useful when you want to customize something. Or would you like to customize something in the blueprint? > > Doru > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote: > It would be great to have the class blueprint available for plain Pharo class. This should not be complicated. Creating a builder is indeed the way to do it. > > Alexandre > > > Le 28-08-2014 à 4:49, Yuriy Tymchuk <[hidden email]> a écrit : > > > > Hi, > > > > is blueprint diagram only available in moose panel? Because I want to use it outside of Moose, so I wander if there is some Roassal builder for that. > > > > > > Uko > > _______________________________________________ > > Moose-dev mailing list > > [hidden email] > > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Hi, Exactly. A builder offers an API with which for the same input you can produce multiple outputs. If you can only produce one output then you probably have a script in your hand. On the other hand, if you do not place the script in the class of the input object, then you probably want to have a separate class for the visualization. In that case, it might still make sense to have this class be a subclass of builder. What do you think?
Doru On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote: If it is not a builder, then it is a simple script. "Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
I think that we should stick to builders.
Because you anyway have some questions open like should script create view or populate existing one and so on. If we create a builder, then potential users will work with familiar interface + will be able to combine your work with other visualisations and so on. I was really frustrated with Roassal 1 because everyone was creating his own thing, and then one builder returned a view, another one - view stack, and some of them required you to provide a view. Uko On 01 Sep 2014, at 06:51, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
I think we are not talking about the same thing. You seem to say that every visualization script should be a builder. I think this is not particularly useful. Or did I get something wrong?
Doru On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <[hidden email]> wrote:
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
I think that Blueprint has a good reason to be a builder :), and if you want to make your thing reusable it’s reasonable to make a builder for it.
(thou maybe I’m not very familiar with Roassal philosophy) Uko On 01 Sep 2014, at 11:23, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Ok, but then it follows that any visualization that is now handled in a self-contained script should be a builder as well. This can well be, but this definition will probably lead us in a slightly different direction than where we are now. That is because we would need to make it very cheap to create a builder out of a script. Would anyone want to explore this? Doru On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <[hidden email]> wrote:
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
As far as I know it is cheap.
Main method in builder is #renderIn: which accepts a view and put’s there everything that you need. So if you have a script (by the way, is there a definition for “roassal script” or it’s a general term?) you just need to copy main functionality into #renderIn:, and other methods as they are to the builder. Also you you need additional data for it, you can add it as setters/initialisation. Uko On 01 Sep 2014, at 13:01, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
I believe we need a builder for the class blueprint. Such a visualization may be configured in many way. Coloring is one easy spot for customization. Alexandre
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Uko2
Indeed! But at that time, we did not know this :)
Alexandre > Le 01-09-2014 à 5:08, Yuriy Tymchuk <[hidden email]> a écrit : > > I was really frustrated with Roassal 1 because everyone was creating his own thing, and then one builder returned a view, another one - view stack, and some of them required you to provide a view. _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
This is not a big deal I feel. A gtinspector view can easily invoke the builder Alexandre
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
«
Return to Moose
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |