ROMondrianViewBuilder versus native Roassal

Is there anything (at all) to gain in my continuing to use
ROMondrianViewBuilder versus "native" Roassal?
Is ROMondrianViewBuilder "just" for backward compatability to ease the
transition and draw people into the new system?
Or... is there stuff that ROMondrianViewBuilder does better than
"native" Roassal - in terms of conciseness, ease of use, flexibility,
access to layouts, features, etc...

I am trying to determine whether putting effort into the perhaps easier
step of going from Mondrian to ROMondrianViewBuilder may be wasted
leaving me missing out on any new power of Roassal, or require more
effort later to rework for native Roassal.

You may have gone over this before, but how do the purpose and
architecture of the two differ?

cheers -ben
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

Ben Coman wrote: I should add, more specifically this is in relation to being more of a
manual drawing application that a completely automated layout of data
(although the auto layouts will be a very handy feature). I think at
some point I did send to a preview of the application I am working on
implementing the model of the Power System.  Also, is there any
difference between the two in integration with Glamour?

_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

Hi Ben,

Roassal offers a low level API with which you should be able to do anything. You use this API when you have instantiating ROView, ROElement, ROEdge. The inconvenient, is that it is quite verbose.

The builder offers a higher level API. ROMondrianViewBuilder defines a domain specific language that is very convenient to define simple static views. By "simple" I mean without animation, interactive hiding elements, resizing and no semantic zoom. This language is backward compatible with Mondrian. From what I got from people feedback, is that this Mondrian language is complicated to use and people feel it involves a lot of voodoo magic, especially regarding edges manipulation. Once you get used to this language, you realize it is incredibly expressive.

So, which one you should use? You can use both, which is, in my opinion, a really cool feature of Roassal. You create a ROView, gives it to a builder (ROMondrianViewBuilder class>>view:) and build your view using Mondrian. After that, you can fiddle with low level things.

My vision for Roassal is to offer a platform on which anyone can easily experiment and produce new domain specific languages. You may wonder why one may want to define its own domain specific language? The current Mondrian DSL is not able to do complicated things that involves animations. Consider the following example: http://peoplemov.in/#f_HR   Cool visu isn't it? However Mondrian is not made to render such a thing. We need a different specific language. This is what Roassal should support.

Cheers,
Alexandre


On Aug 20, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.



_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev