distribution map
Locked
 
|
Hi Cyrille,
I have a bit of feedback for Distribution Map: - The computation from Distribution Map Wizard is too expensive because you iterate over the meta elements and for each of them you go over all elements of Moose through the method includesElementsOfType: It would be better if you would go over all cached groups and decide based on that rather than traversing the entire entities collection (which can be millions of objects). - It would be better if Distribution Map gets its own package because it starts to be large Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Hello,
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I add that to my list
2010/5/4 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> Hi Cyrille, _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
That's done.
I created a new package: Moose-DistributionMap, is it ok? I also updated ConfigurationOfMoose to load this package by default. I made some improvments about the wizard's computations (including the one you suggested).
2010/5/4 Cyrille Delaunay <[hidden email]> Hello, _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba
On 4 mai 2010, at 10:36, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi Cyrille, > > I have a bit of feedback for Distribution Map: > > - The computation from Distribution Map Wizard is too expensive because you iterate over the meta elements and for each of them you go over all elements of Moose through the method includesElementsOfType: > > It would be better if you would go over all cached groups and decide based on that rather than traversing the entire entities collection (which can be millions of objects). > > - It would be better if Distribution Map gets its own package because it starts to be large What does large mean in this context? I mean, I don't understand the benefit of creating a single package for DistributionMap while all others are under MondrianPaintings (within their own categories) -- Simon _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Hi,
MondrianPaintings holds Mondrian views which are typically 2-3 methods each. Distribution Map, with all the Wizard and other computations is more than that, so I think it deserves a package on its own :) Actually, I do not like categories :). I prefer to have packages for everything. Cheers, Doru On 4 May 2010, at 16:38, Simon Denier wrote: > > On 4 mai 2010, at 10:36, Tudor Girba wrote: > >> Hi Cyrille, >> >> I have a bit of feedback for Distribution Map: >> >> - The computation from Distribution Map Wizard is too expensive >> because you iterate over the meta elements and for each of them you >> go over all elements of Moose through the method >> includesElementsOfType: >> >> It would be better if you would go over all cached groups and >> decide based on that rather than traversing the entire entities >> collection (which can be millions of objects). >> >> - It would be better if Distribution Map gets its own package >> because it starts to be large > > > What does large mean in this context? I mean, I don't understand the > benefit of creating a single package for DistributionMap while all > others are under MondrianPaintings (within their own categories) > > > -- > Simon > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every now and then stop and ask yourself if the war you're fighting is the right one." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
On 5 mai 2010, at 10:22, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi, > > MondrianPaintings holds Mondrian views which are typically 2-3 methods each. Distribution Map, with all the Wizard and other computations is more than that, so I think it deserves a package on its own :) I think like that for MondrianScripts, which are often class extensions, but not for MondrianPaintings which often holds multiple classes for the same application. Then CycleTable, LayerTable, and PackageBlueprints have comparable size to DistributionMap. But I like the fact that they all appear together in the browser. > > Actually, I do not like categories :). I prefer to have packages for everything. Well packages are for distribution, categories for internal organization (so I don't mind them if this is built this way). It makes sense to have multiple packages when: - you end up with too many merges due to co-evolution of unrelated things within a single package (I don't feel we don't have this problem right now with Moose-MondrianPaintings) - you have independent applications mixed with Moose-dependent applications: we could put DistributionMap, CycleTable, LayerTable in MondrianPaintings (so the one from Mondrian, not Moose-...) since they do not depend on Famix at all. But then we have to take care of new dependencies for Mondrian (like Merlin) Does it sound right? > > Cheers, > Doru > > On 4 May 2010, at 16:38, Simon Denier wrote: > >> >> On 4 mai 2010, at 10:36, Tudor Girba wrote: >> >>> Hi Cyrille, >>> >>> I have a bit of feedback for Distribution Map: >>> >>> - The computation from Distribution Map Wizard is too expensive because you iterate over the meta elements and for each of them you go over all elements of Moose through the method includesElementsOfType: >>> >>> It would be better if you would go over all cached groups and decide based on that rather than traversing the entire entities collection (which can be millions of objects). >>> >>> - It would be better if Distribution Map gets its own package because it starts to be large >> >> >> What does large mean in this context? I mean, I don't understand the benefit of creating a single package for DistributionMap while all others are under MondrianPaintings (within their own categories) >> >> >> -- >> Simon >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every now and then stop and ask yourself if the war you're fighting is the right one." > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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,
On 5 May 2010, at 11:30, Simon Denier wrote: > > On 5 mai 2010, at 10:22, Tudor Girba wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> MondrianPaintings holds Mondrian views which are typically 2-3 >> methods each. Distribution Map, with all the Wizard and other >> computations is more than that, so I think it deserves a package on >> its own :) > > > I think like that for MondrianScripts, which are often class > extensions, but not for MondrianPaintings which often holds multiple > classes for the same application. Then CycleTable, LayerTable, and > PackageBlueprints have comparable size to DistributionMap. But I > like the fact that they all appear together in the browser. Ok, for me MondrianScripts should go in MondrianPaintings >> >> Actually, I do not like categories :). I prefer to have packages >> for everything. > > Well packages are for distribution, categories for internal > organization (so I don't mind them if this is built this way). It > makes sense to have multiple packages when: > - you end up with too many merges due to co-evolution of unrelated > things within a single package (I don't feel we don't have this > problem right now with Moose-MondrianPaintings) In my opinion there are too many interests in this package already. > - you have independent applications mixed with Moose-dependent > applications: we could put DistributionMap, CycleTable, LayerTable > in MondrianPaintings (so the one from Mondrian, not Moose-...) since > they do not depend on Famix at all. But then we have to take care of > new dependencies for Mondrian (like Merlin) The DistributionMap Wizard depends on Moose and on Fame not just on Merlin, so they do not belong in Mondrian. But, indeed I think that the DistributionMap visualization engine and the other ones could belong to Mondrian as a layer on top. In that case, the Distribution Map Wizard would be packaged in Moose- DistributionMap. What I am sure of is that I want to move MondrianScripts into MondrianPaintings, because the name is better. Cheers, Doru > Does it sound right? > > >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> On 4 May 2010, at 16:38, Simon Denier wrote: >> >>> >>> On 4 mai 2010, at 10:36, Tudor Girba wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Cyrille, >>>> >>>> I have a bit of feedback for Distribution Map: >>>> >>>> - The computation from Distribution Map Wizard is too expensive >>>> because you iterate over the meta elements and for each of them >>>> you go over all elements of Moose through the method >>>> includesElementsOfType: >>>> >>>> It would be better if you would go over all cached groups and >>>> decide based on that rather than traversing the entire entities >>>> collection (which can be millions of objects). >>>> >>>> - It would be better if Distribution Map gets its own package >>>> because it starts to be large >>> >>> >>> What does large mean in this context? I mean, I don't understand >>> the benefit of creating a single package for DistributionMap while >>> all others are under MondrianPaintings (within their own categories) >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Simon >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Every now and then stop and ask yourself if the war you're >> fighting is the right one." >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing should have the right to be different." _______________________________________________ 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 |