Home » Eclipse Projects » GEF » Major/minor grid and snapping
|
| Re: Major/minor grid and snapping [message #193358 is a reply to message #193339] |
Thu, 25 August 2005 16:12   |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: none.us.ibm.com
Isn't this merely an issue of how you paint the grid?
"Martijn van Steenbergen" <mvsteenbergen@eljakim.nl> wrote in message
news:dek817$cs8$1@news.eclipse.org...
> Does GEF currently support major and minor grids? If not, are there any
> plans for this?
>
> I can imagine clients might want to have, for example, a square grid of
> size 1 cm, but snap to units of 1 mm. The latter could be considered a
> minor grid, which may or may not be visible, independently from the
> visibility of the major grid.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martijn.
|
|
| |
| Re: Major/minor grid and snapping [message #193374 is a reply to message #193358] |
Thu, 25 August 2005 22:16 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: none.unknown.com
Yes, it is. Martijn, override createGridLayer() in your root editpart to
return a custom GridLayer (you can override its paintGrid() method).
"Randy Hudson" <none@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:dekqlc$9c8$1@news.eclipse.org...
> Isn't this merely an issue of how you paint the grid?
>
> "Martijn van Steenbergen" <mvsteenbergen@eljakim.nl> wrote in message
> news:dek817$cs8$1@news.eclipse.org...
> > Does GEF currently support major and minor grids? If not, are there any
> > plans for this?
> >
> > I can imagine clients might want to have, for example, a square grid of
> > size 1 cm, but snap to units of 1 mm. The latter could be considered a
> > minor grid, which may or may not be visible, independently from the
> > visibility of the major grid.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Martijn.
>
>
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Major/minor grid and snapping [message #193529 is a reply to message #193424] |
Fri, 26 August 2005 13:44 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: none.us.ibm.com
Feel free to contribute this back to GEF. I would create some new viewer
property called something like GRID_INTERVAL. When the grid is painted, it
could skip the rows/columns that don't fall on the interval.
An interval might be easier than trying to enforce that major and minor are
multiples of each other. Simply attach code to a bugzilla and we will review
and commit it if we don't have any comments.
-Randy
"Martijn van Steenbergen" <mvsteenbergen@eljakim.nl> wrote in message
news:demhtf$9sd$1@news.eclipse.org...
> Yes, thank you, will do. :) I was just wondering if you might want to put
> this kind of behaviour in GEF so that not every client implements this in
> his/her own way, but perhaps it's too small a thing to be an issue.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martijn.
>
> Pratik Shah wrote:
>> Yes, it is. Martijn, override createGridLayer() in your root editpart to
>> return a custom GridLayer (you can override its paintGrid() method).
>>
>> "Randy Hudson" <none@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
>> news:dekqlc$9c8$1@news.eclipse.org...
>>
>>>Isn't this merely an issue of how you paint the grid?
|
|
|
| Re: Major/minor grid and snapping [message #193765 is a reply to message #193529] |
Mon, 29 August 2005 08:06 |
 Martijn van Steenbergen
Messages: 16
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Randy Hudson wrote:
> Feel free to contribute this back to GEF. I would create some new viewer
> property called something like GRID_INTERVAL. When the grid is painted, it
> could skip the rows/columns that don't fall on the interval.
>
> An interval might be easier than trying to enforce that major and minor are
> multiples of each other. Simply attach code to a bugzilla and we will review
> and commit it if we don't have any comments.
I would like that, but I'm not sure when I'll be able to do this. Also,
I'm afraid you'll spend more time answering my questions than if you
implemented it yourself. :P
My idea was that the major and minor grid can both be independently
turned on and off. The major grid is drawn with a thicker/darker stroke
than the minor grid. Snap is always to the minor grid. If I understand
your suggestion correctly, I can't toggle the visibility of the minor
grid. I suppose I could just build that, but I want to make sure you're
okay with this. The following is a suggestion of how it could work:
- Currently, the grid only has a 'minor' grid, and its visibility is
'equivalent' to the layer's (figure's) visibility. For the minor and
major grid to be independent, there will have to be two extra
properties: MINOR_GRID_VISIBLE and MAJOR_GRID_VISIBLE, separate from the
current GRID_VISIBLE.
- Then there's the GRID_INTERVAL. This could be a two-dimensional thing:
you might want the horizontal interval to differ form the vertical
interval. Is a Dimension appropriate for this?
Is it true that I change the GridLayer class for this? I ask because you
mentioned 'viewer properties'. Or do I also change the GraphicalViewer
class? And the FreeformGraphicalRootEditPart's and
ScalableRootEditPart's refreshGridLayer()?
Then a question not regarding the implementation but the use of grids:
in my graphical editor, I'm not using the RootEditPart's GridLayer.
Rather, I have a specific kind of EditPart that has a local grid. Is GEF
designed to support this? I had to override
LayeredPane.usesLocalCoordinates() to return true. Also, I could not use
PROPERTY_GRID_VISIBLE, because this was already tied to the
RootEditPart's GridLayer, so I created my own property. Is it okay to
(ab)use PROPERTY_GRID_SPACING for my custom grids, or would you
discourage this?
And finally, a meta-question: is this the right place to ask these
questions? Or should I ask them on the mailing list? Or post them as
comments on a bug report?
Thanks in advance. :)
Regards,
Martijn.
|
|
|
| Re: Major/minor grid and snapping [message #193877 is a reply to message #193765] |
Mon, 29 August 2005 15:02 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: none.us.ibm.com
> I would like that, but I'm not sure when I'll be able to do this. Also,
> I'm afraid you'll spend more time answering my questions than if you
> implemented it yourself. :P
>
> My idea was that the major and minor grid can both be independently turned
> on and off. The major grid is drawn with a thicker/darker stroke than the
> minor grid. Snap is always to the minor grid. If I understand your
> suggestion correctly, I can't toggle the visibility of the minor grid. I
> suppose I could just build that, but I want to make sure you're okay with
> this. The following is a suggestion of how it could work:
> - Currently, the grid only has a 'minor' grid, and its visibility is
> 'equivalent' to the layer's (figure's) visibility. For the minor and major
> grid to be independent, there will have to be two extra properties:
> MINOR_GRID_VISIBLE and MAJOR_GRID_VISIBLE, separate from the current
> GRID_VISIBLE.
I think you need to rethink the usability here. What would it mean for
GRID_VISIBLE to be TRUE, and the other two values to be FALSE? IMO, you only
need one additional flag, and that even is overkill.
> - Then there's the GRID_INTERVAL. This could be a two-dimensional thing:
> you might want the horizontal interval to differ form the vertical
> interval. Is a Dimension appropriate for this?
I don't think rectangular grids are common enough to support.
> Is it true that I change the GridLayer class for this? I ask because you
> mentioned 'viewer properties'. Or do I also change the GraphicalViewer
> class? And the FreeformGraphicalRootEditPart's and ScalableRootEditPart's
> refreshGridLayer()?
Yes, but GridLayer uses a FigureUtilities method to paint hte grid, so that
would be changed too. (Probably a new method with more params).
>
> Then a question not regarding the implementation but the use of grids: in
> my graphical editor, I'm not using the RootEditPart's GridLayer. Rather, I
> have a specific kind of EditPart that has a local grid. Is GEF designed to
> support this?
Yes, that's why we make the utility method available to any figure.
IMO, the major grid interval would be based on the current zoom factor. So,
as I zoom in, I see more grid lines. Consider this instead of a fixed
interval.
|
|
|
| Re: Major/minor grid and snapping [message #193884 is a reply to message #193877] |
Mon, 29 August 2005 15:03 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: none.us.ibm.com
Oh yeah, I prefer bugzilla if you are going to at least:
- provide mockups of what the grid should look like
- describe the desired behavior in detail
and/or
- provide a patch
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Feb 05 12:02:13 GMT 2025
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04800 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
