> Alexandre, I think this example shows what I was badly hinting at with my > "ROElement>>mostSpecificParentCommonWith:" thread. This used to decide which > level within a hierarchy of sub-element edges are stored. Referring to the > first attachement of Cipirian's post "Figure 2(a)", I think in this case the > "inner" edges should be stored as part of the "Composite" element, but I > think currently they would be stored in the parent of "Composite".
if you check the sender of #mostSpecificParentCommonWith: then you will see that only the Mondrian builder makes use of it. Currently, and outside the Mondrian DSL, you can insert the edge where you actually want, independently of its extremities. > Also I had been thinking for a while that it would be nice to be able to have > AttachPoints rendered - both as permanently-visible and also > visible-on-hover-only, so that when I re-implement the edge rubber-banding to > interactive draw lines between elements (which I demoed to you a while ago on > Mondrian) the user could drop the edge-end onto a specific AttachPoint. This should be easy to do. However before to work on this, I have a question about what Roassal currently offers. In Roassal, lines knows about the attach points, i.e., the class ROLine has a variable called 'attachPoint', intended to hold an instance of ROAttachPoint. It is therefore not the node the is aware of it. It is more flexible in my opinion than what traditional drawing tools offers. I am wondering whether this is what we really want. Shouldn't the element/node be aware of its attachpoint, instead of its edges? Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
