Looks Like Marucio has provided some feedback on the pull request.  



>  
> Hi Levi: you have done a hard work. I think it requires a little improvement 
> to be merge in the master.  
> Right now, the "behavior" classes are doing all the work. In order to 
> distribute better the intelligence, I suggest you to create a couple of 
> commands. The first to draw the buffer preveiw and another one to create the 
> buffer feature when the user interaction has been finished.
>  
>  
> I will send you an e-mail with one idea for your considaration.
>  
>  
>  

I am going to guess the first one is about making a "draw" command that you can 
update as the user provides interaction. The behaviour can update the 
information used by the draw command; and invalidate the draw command when the 
activity is complete.

The other one seems a bit more straight forward; process the geometry (i.e. add 
the buffer) just prior to the submit feature being called?  

--  
Jody Garnett


On Monday, 26 September 2011 at 9:33 AM, Levi Putna wrote:

>  Let me try and finish the email before I hit send this time.
> > How do you mean conflict? Were they fighting over keyboard short cuts? Or 
> > is it a case of being unable to reuse the functionality because of a design 
> > decision?
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
>  
>  
> Correct, both behaviours share the same keyboard shortcut and provide similar 
> UI feedback so it was a little confusing having both active at the same time.
>  
> I merged all my changes back into my master branch before I pushed everything 
> up to my git hub fork, ill break it out into a new branch and make a pull 
> request.
>  
> I'll add some additional notes to the pull request.
>  
> Cheers,
> --  
> Levi Putna
> www.ozblog.com.au (http://www.ozblog.com.au)
>  
> On Monday, 26 September 2011 at 9:08 AM, Levi Putna wrote:
>  
> > > How do you mean conflict? Were they fighting over keyboard short cuts? Or 
> > > is it a case of being unable to reuse the functionality because of a 
> > > design decision?
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> > Correct, both behavours  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > --  
> > Levi Putna
> > www.ozblog.com.au (http://www.ozblog.com.au)
> >  
> > On Saturday, 24 September 2011 at 3:48 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> >  
> > > Hi Levi:
> > >  
> > > Starting a new email subject line so that people can see you switched 
> > > topics:  
> > > > Thanks Jody, I have commit access now.
> > > >  
> > > > I need a little help + code review to finis off the smart buffer tool, 
> > > > what is the best option? Commit in a new branch or do a pull request?
> > > >  
> > > > Currently Smart Buffer is its own tool with three behaviours. I was 
> > > > unable to use snapping as some of the functionality to adjust the snap 
> > > > limit conflicted with the functionality to adjust the buffer size. I 
> > > > hope to rectify this before adding the tool to trunk.
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > >  
> > > How do you mean conflict? Were they fighting over keyboard short cuts? Or 
> > > is it a case of being unable to reuse the functionality because of a 
> > > design decision?
> > >  
> > > I am trying to think if snapping makes sense when defining a shape using 
> > > buffer. The real motivation for snapping is to exactly line up with 
> > > another feature (or a grid). Since we then go and buffer that exact point 
> > > I am not sure I see the benefit of supporting both?
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > I think I may have setup the create feature command incorrectly as the 
> > > > Enter to finish is not working. Otherwise I’m happy with everything 
> > > > else.
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > >  
> > > I think the easiest way will be to issue a pull request; and comment on 
> > > the areas you need review / feedback on? It would be handy if this was 
> > > issued from a branch. If needed we could then push the branch to the main 
> > > udig_platform if some collaboration was needed?
> > >  
> > >  
> > > --  
> > > Jody Garnett
> > >  
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig)
> > > http://udig.refractions.net
> > > http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel
> >  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig)
> http://udig.refractions.net
> http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel

_______________________________________________
User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig)
http://udig.refractions.net
http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel

Reply via email to