Hi Clément, Thanks for your nice words. Layouts provided by Roassal are well known generic algorithm. Creating a new layout is not complicated at all. Just subclass ROLayout and override the hook methods. Creating a layout for your need is not easy. Have you tried to google for a layout? If you find one, it should be rather easy to implement it.
Alexandre On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Clément Bera <bera.clem...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Roassal developers, > > A few time ago Usman Bhatti showed me Roassal. Today I decided to use it for > my daily work on a project that aims to optimize Pharo's methods. > > Firstly I am quite impressed by the quality of Roassal, I am currently using > the Roassal + Mondrian builder and I have a visual representation which is > very close to what I want after 1 hour of work with the help of Usman. Good > job guys. > > Here are 2 examples of what I use: > > exampleIfTrueIfFalse2 > | a b | > a := true. > a > ifTrue: [ > false ifTrue: [ ^ b := 1 ] ifFalse: [ b := 2 ] ] > ifFalse: [ > true ifTrue: [ b := 4 ] ifFalse: [ b := 5 ] ]. > ^ b > > <Screen Shot 2014-01-14 at 4.14.49 PM.png> > > Here there's one rectangle for each basic block, entrance/exits are basic > blocks with bigger borders, and borders in red represents the "hot path", > which the path the execution flow most frequently uses (based on native code > counters added at some spots in the method by Cogit). > > Another example: > > exampleToDo > > 1 to: 10 do: [ :i | > self kick: i ] > > <Screen Shot 2014-01-14 at 4.36.47 PM.png> > > Now I have a few issues with the layout. I am currently using the > narrowTreeLayout which seems to be the best for my visualisation. > > issue 1: When branches merges, which is in a tree when a node has 2 or more > parents, or when I have a #ifTrue:ifFalse:, the child is not well aligned > horizontally. Here in the first visualisation I showed, BasicBlock 5 is below > but not in the middle of Basic block 8,7 and 4 (horizontally). I put a > minimal width for each basic block to make it better but it's still not > perfect. > issue 2: (most important issue) I cannot display back jumps because then all > the graph is missdrawn, therefore I need to remember where they are instead > of visualizing them all the time (I cannot display the back jump from basic > block 3 to basic block 2 in the second representation. In addition, the back > jump edge, when well displayed, overlaps the basic blocks visualizations. > > Here is an example of what I would like for the edges and basic block > positions: > > <Screen Shot 2014-01-14 at 4.27.32 PM.png> > > As you can see, here exit is in the middle of B2 and B5 horizontally, which > is not the case in my roassal visualization. > In addition, there's a back jump from B6 to B4 that I cannot display (or all > the visual representation goes nuts). The edge for the back jump does not > overlap with the basic blocks. In this graph, arrows follow a grid. I don't > care that arrows are diagonals instead of a mix of horizontal and vertical > lines but I would like to be able to see nicely the back jumps as in this > graph. > > Do you have an idea on what layout/view options I could use with Roassal > +Mondrian to have a better result ? > > I tried to create my own layout but after 2 hours I understood this cost too > much time for my planning (or perhaps I'm just too dumb to do it fast :-( ). > > Anyway, the representation I have now is good enough for me to use it. But a > better one would be better, especially for back jumps :-). > > Thanks for any help. > > Clement -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
