| Zest: Open Constraints for TreeLayout and others? [message #240676] |
Mon, 14 January 2008 00:17  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Sorry to newgroup bomb, but I'm also wondering if there is a way to
override these layouts so that they get set to a preferred size equal
to the 'ideal' layout sans Node Resizing. IOTW, I just want to layout
my tree nodes such that they are all one size and the viewer grows to
whatever size fits that ideal. I've tried all of the LayoutStyle
options and have figured out how to give it some arbitrary size by
overriding preLayoutAlgorithm. I suppose I can calculate the expected
max x and y nodes and simply set size by an appropriate multiple but
I'm wondering if there is a more elegant way.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Zest: Open Constraints for TreeLayout and others? [message #241173 is a reply to message #240980] |
Fri, 01 February 2008 01:18  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Oh, and not just the node sizes, but the relative spacing between nodes
(in the minimal distance case).
On 2008-01-26 19:14:48 -0700, Miles Parker <milesparker@gmail.com> said:
>
> Exactly, and will do.
>
> On 2008-01-14 22:16:30 -0700, Ian Bull <irbull@cs.uvic.ca> said:
>
>> Can you please open a bug for this and I will see what I can do.
>>
>> (open it in GEF under the GEF component)
>>
>> Just so I understand, you don't mind if your canvas grows, the node
>> sizes are what's important.
>>
>> cheers,
>> ian
>>
>> Miles Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry to newgroup bomb, but I'm also wondering if there is a way to
>>> override these layouts so that they get set to a preferred size equal
>>> to the 'ideal' layout sans Node Resizing. IOTW, I just want to layout
>>> my tree nodes such that they are all one size and the viewer grows to
>>> whatever size fits that ideal. I've tried all of the LayoutStyle
>>> options and have figured out how to give it some arbitrary size by
>>> overriding preLayoutAlgorithm. I suppose I can calculate the expected
>>> max x and y nodes and simply set size by an appropriate multiple but
>>> I'm wondering if there is a more elegant way.
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.49801 seconds
Home