First pass for generic DSM

> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to make DSM generic.
> In the last version of DSM, we can make a DSM based on nodes and edges.
>
> Only the basic DSM works on it (dsm with colors). And I have to debug the interaction of the visualization.
>
> In the package DSMCore, I made a class DSMExample with, for now, 2 examples.
>
> Here is an example:
> ====
>
> dSMMatrix := DSMMatrix withNodes: #(#1 #2 #3) edges: #(#(#1 #2) #(#2 #1) #(#3 #1)).
>
> view := MOViewRenderer new.
> DSMVisualization new
> open: dSMMatrix
> on: view.
> view open
> ====
>
> We make a DSM with nodes and a collection of edges. An edge is a collection of two elements: the source and the target.
> I think I will do a third element to add informations for other DSM.
>
> You can try it, and make comments.
> I will pay attention to your idea to have a better generic DSM.
>
> Cheers
> ---
> Jannik Laval
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

> Cool! It works for me.
>
>> dSMMatrix := DSMMatrix withNodes: #(#1 #2 #3) edges: #(#(#1 #2)  
>> #(#2 #1) #(#3 #1)).
>
> I was wondering why not to use the Mondrian convention for  
> specifying edges.
> In mondrian you can specify edges with:
> view edges: nodes from: #selector1 to: #selector2.
>
> For each node contained in nodes, it creates an edge going from  
> 'node selector1' to 'node selector2'. This is quite convenient,  
> because I do not have to specify how each edge is defined within the  
> script. The domain I wish to represent is in charge of defining the  
> edges.
>
> If you still wish to explicitly defining edges, you can always do:
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> view shape rectangle size: 30; withText.
> view nodes: (1 to: 3).
> view shape arrowedLine.
> view edges: {1 -> 2. 2 -> 1 . 3 ->1} from: #key to: #value.
> view treeLayout
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> Also, maybe it would be nice to have a DSMShape in Mondrian, that  
> draw a DSM for a particular node (e.g., a group of packages). But  
> maybe this could be quite some work to adapt your implementation.
>
> Cheers,
> Alexandre
>
> --
> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
> On 21 Apr 2010, at 15:41, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>
>> Cool! It works for me.
>>
>>> dSMMatrix := DSMMatrix withNodes: #(#1 #2 #3) edges: #(#(#1 #2) #(#2 #1) #(#3 #1)).
>>
>> I was wondering why not to use the Mondrian convention for specifying edges.
>> In mondrian you can specify edges with:
>> view edges: nodes from: #selector1 to: #selector2.
>>
>> For each node contained in nodes, it creates an edge going from 'node selector1' to 'node selector2'. This is quite convenient, because I do not have to specify how each edge is defined within the script. The domain I wish to represent is in charge of defining the edges.
>>
>> If you still wish to explicitly defining edges, you can always do:
>>
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> view shape rectangle size: 30; withText.
>> view nodes: (1 to: 3).
>> view shape arrowedLine.
>> view edges: {1 -> 2. 2 -> 1 . 3 ->1} from: #key to: #value.
>> view treeLayout
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>
>> Also, maybe it would be nice to have a DSMShape in Mondrian, that draw a DSM for a particular node (e.g., a group of packages). But maybe this could be quite some work to adapt your implementation.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alexandre
>>
>> --
>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>>
>>
>> On 21 Apr 2010, at 15:41, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>>
>>> Cool! It works for me.
>>>
>>>> dSMMatrix := DSMMatrix withNodes: #(#1 #2 #3) edges: #(#(#1 #2)  
>>>> #(#2 #1) #(#3 #1)).
>>>
>>> I was wondering why not to use the Mondrian convention for  
>>> specifying edges.
>>> In mondrian you can specify edges with:
>>> view edges: nodes from: #selector1 to: #selector2.
>>>
>>> For each node contained in nodes, it creates an edge going from  
>>> 'node selector1' to 'node selector2'. This is quite convenient,  
>>> because I do not have to specify how each edge is defined within  
>>> the script. The domain I wish to represent is in charge of  
>>> defining the edges.
>>>
>>> If you still wish to explicitly defining edges, you can always do:
>>>
>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>> view shape rectangle size: 30; withText.
>>> view nodes: (1 to: 3).
>>> view shape arrowedLine.
>>> view edges: {1 -> 2. 2 -> 1 . 3 ->1} from: #key to: #value.
>>> view treeLayout
>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>>
>>> Also, maybe it would be nice to have a DSMShape in Mondrian, that  
>>> draw a DSM for a particular node (e.g., a group of packages). But  
>>> maybe this could be quite some work to adapt your implementation.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Alexandre
>>>
>>> --
>>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>>> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
>>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>
>> --
>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>
>> "What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> --
> Simon
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

>
> On 21 avr. 2010, at 16:19, Tudor Girba wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> That is great indeed. Jannik, thanks for spending the time to make it generic. It will be very useful.
>>
>> I agree with the suggestion of Alex regarding the API. Perhaps you can build a DSMBuilder that just provides the API to populate your internal model.
>
>
> While we are on it, I just want to put forward that the Graph library already comes with a generic graph builder just for this purpose (it's used for example in layer table and other places, to build graph structure with more or less arbitrary classes).
>
> The following is the sample expression to create a basic graph.
>
> MOGraphStructure new
> nodeClass: MOGraphNode;
> edgeClass: MOGraphEdge;
> nodes: #(1 2 3);
> edges: #((1 2) (2 1) (3 1)) from: #first to: #second.
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>>
>>
>> On 21 Apr 2010, at 15:41, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>>
>>> Cool! It works for me.
>>>
>>>> dSMMatrix := DSMMatrix withNodes: #(#1 #2 #3) edges: #(#(#1 #2) #(#2 #1) #(#3 #1)).
>>>
>>> I was wondering why not to use the Mondrian convention for specifying edges.
>>> In mondrian you can specify edges with:
>>> view edges: nodes from: #selector1 to: #selector2.
>>>
>>> For each node contained in nodes, it creates an edge going from 'node selector1' to 'node selector2'. This is quite convenient, because I do not have to specify how each edge is defined within the script. The domain I wish to represent is in charge of defining the edges.
>>>
>>> If you still wish to explicitly defining edges, you can always do:
>>>
>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>> view shape rectangle size: 30; withText.
>>> view nodes: (1 to: 3).
>>> view shape arrowedLine.
>>> view edges: {1 -> 2. 2 -> 1 . 3 ->1} from: #key to: #value.
>>> view treeLayout
>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>>
>>> Also, maybe it would be nice to have a DSMShape in Mondrian, that draw a DSM for a particular node (e.g., a group of packages). But maybe this could be quite some work to adapt your implementation.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Alexandre
>>>
>>> --
>>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>>> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
>>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>
>> --
>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>
>> "What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> --
> Simon
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

> Hi,
>
> I made it. Now, there are two ways to build a DSM. First, with the  
> DSMBuilder, seond by a small script.
>
> Example of the first method:
> =====
> DSMBuilder buildWithNodes: #(1 2 3 4 5 6) edges: #((1 2) (2 1) (3 1)  
> (2 3) (4 5) (5 4) (6 4)) from: #first to: #second
> =====
>
> Example of the second one:
> =====
> |DSMAlgo dSMMatrix view|
> view := MOViewRenderer new.
> dSMMatrix := DSMMatrix withNodes: #(1 2 3 4 5 6) edges: #((1 2) (2  
> 1) (3 1) (2 3) (4 5) (5 4) (6 4)) from:#first to:#second.
>
> DSMVisualization new
> open: dSMMatrix
> on: view.
> view open
> =====
>
> Cheers,
> Jannik
>
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 16:50 , Simon Denier wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 avr. 2010, at 16:19, Tudor Girba wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> That is great indeed. Jannik, thanks for spending the time to make  
>>> it generic. It will be very useful.
>>>
>>> I agree with the suggestion of Alex regarding the API. Perhaps you  
>>> can build a DSMBuilder that just provides the API to populate your  
>>> internal model.
>>
>>
>> While we are on it, I just want to put forward that the Graph  
>> library already comes with a generic graph builder just for this  
>> purpose (it's used for example in layer table and other places, to  
>> build graph structure with more or less arbitrary classes).
>>
>> The following is the sample expression to create a basic graph.
>>
>> MOGraphStructure new
>> nodeClass: MOGraphNode;
>> edgeClass: MOGraphEdge;
>> nodes: #(1 2 3);
>> edges: #((1 2) (2 1) (3 1)) from: #first to: #second.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Doru
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 Apr 2010, at 15:41, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cool! It works for me.
>>>>
>>>>> dSMMatrix := DSMMatrix withNodes: #(#1 #2 #3) edges: #(#(#1 #2)  
>>>>> #(#2 #1) #(#3 #1)).
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering why not to use the Mondrian convention for  
>>>> specifying edges.
>>>> In mondrian you can specify edges with:
>>>> view edges: nodes from: #selector1 to: #selector2.
>>>>
>>>> For each node contained in nodes, it creates an edge going from  
>>>> 'node selector1' to 'node selector2'. This is quite convenient,  
>>>> because I do not have to specify how each edge is defined within  
>>>> the script. The domain I wish to represent is in charge of  
>>>> defining the edges.
>>>>
>>>> If you still wish to explicitly defining edges, you can always do:
>>>>
>>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>>> view shape rectangle size: 30; withText.
>>>> view nodes: (1 to: 3).
>>>> view shape arrowedLine.
>>>> view edges: {1 -> 2. 2 -> 1 . 3 ->1} from: #key to: #value.
>>>> view treeLayout
>>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>>>
>>>> Also, maybe it would be nice to have a DSMShape in Mondrian, that  
>>>> draw a DSM for a particular node (e.g., a group of packages). But  
>>>> maybe this could be quite some work to adapt your implementation.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Alexandre
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>>>> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
>>>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>>
>>> "What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>
>> --
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> ---
> Jannik Laval
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

> Hi,
>
> I made it. Now, there are two ways to build a DSM. First, with the  
> DSMBuilder, seond by a small script.
>
> Example of the first method:
> =====
> DSMBuilder buildWithNodes: #(1 2 3 4 5 6) edges: #((1 2) (2 1) (3 1)  
> (2 3) (4 5) (5 4) (6 4)) from: #first to: #second
> =====
>
> Example of the second one:
> =====
> |DSMAlgo dSMMatrix view|
> view := MOViewRenderer new.
> dSMMatrix := DSMMatrix withNodes: #(1 2 3 4 5 6) edges: #((1 2) (2  
> 1) (3 1) (2 3) (4 5) (5 4) (6 4)) from:#first to:#second.
>
> DSMVisualization new
> open: dSMMatrix
> on: view.
> view open
> =====
>
> Cheers,
> Jannik
>
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 16:50 , Simon Denier wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 avr. 2010, at 16:19, Tudor Girba wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> That is great indeed. Jannik, thanks for spending the time to make  
>>> it generic. It will be very useful.
>>>
>>> I agree with the suggestion of Alex regarding the API. Perhaps you  
>>> can build a DSMBuilder that just provides the API to populate your  
>>> internal model.
>>
>>
>> While we are on it, I just want to put forward that the Graph  
>> library already comes with a generic graph builder just for this  
>> purpose (it's used for example in layer table and other places, to  
>> build graph structure with more or less arbitrary classes).
>>
>> The following is the sample expression to create a basic graph.
>>
>> MOGraphStructure new
>> nodeClass: MOGraphNode;
>> edgeClass: MOGraphEdge;
>> nodes: #(1 2 3);
>> edges: #((1 2) (2 1) (3 1)) from: #first to: #second.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Doru
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 Apr 2010, at 15:41, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cool! It works for me.
>>>>
>>>>> dSMMatrix := DSMMatrix withNodes: #(#1 #2 #3) edges: #(#(#1 #2)  
>>>>> #(#2 #1) #(#3 #1)).
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering why not to use the Mondrian convention for  
>>>> specifying edges.
>>>> In mondrian you can specify edges with:
>>>> view edges: nodes from: #selector1 to: #selector2.
>>>>
>>>> For each node contained in nodes, it creates an edge going from  
>>>> 'node selector1' to 'node selector2'. This is quite convenient,  
>>>> because I do not have to specify how each edge is defined within  
>>>> the script. The domain I wish to represent is in charge of  
>>>> defining the edges.
>>>>
>>>> If you still wish to explicitly defining edges, you can always do:
>>>>
>>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>>> view shape rectangle size: 30; withText.
>>>> view nodes: (1 to: 3).
>>>> view shape arrowedLine.
>>>> view edges: {1 -> 2. 2 -> 1 . 3 ->1} from: #key to: #value.
>>>> view treeLayout
>>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>>>
>>>> Also, maybe it would be nice to have a DSMShape in Mondrian, that  
>>>> draw a DSM for a particular node (e.g., a group of packages). But  
>>>> maybe this could be quite some work to adapt your implementation.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Alexandre
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>>>> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
>>>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>>
>>> "What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>
>> --
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> ---
> Jannik Laval
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev