Posted by
Tudor Girba on
May 05, 2010; 9:47am
URL: https://forum.world.st/distribution-map-tp2125175p2130692.html
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