| Connection suggestion [message #122186] |
Sun, 14 March 2004 01:00  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi all,
I think it would make life a lot easier if Figures (or perhaps a subclass,
NodeFigures) held a member ArrayList containing their ConnectionAnchors,
the names of the anchors, their relative positions, and orientations (IN,
OUT, or BOTH). It just seems that there has to be an easier way of
managing these objects than what's currently available. Just a thought.
Also, I missed Randy's request for assistance. If he would be so kind as
to re-post or reply, I'll pay greater attention.
Matt
|
|
|
| Re: Connection suggestion [message #122428 is a reply to message #122186] |
Mon, 15 March 2004 10:07  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: phil.williams.toadmail.com
That is exactly what I am doing in my application. My figures (which
were based upon the logic example) has a vector of source and target
anchors. No reason why it couldn't be an ArrayList. The anchors
themselves know their own position.
Phil
Matt wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I think it would make life a lot easier if Figures (or perhaps a subclass,
>NodeFigures) held a member ArrayList containing their ConnectionAnchors,
>the names of the anchors, their relative positions, and orientations (IN,
>OUT, or BOTH). It just seems that there has to be an easier way of
>managing these objects than what's currently available. Just a thought.
>
>Also, I missed Randy's request for assistance. If he would be so kind as
>to re-post or reply, I'll pay greater attention.
>
>Matt
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Connection suggestion [message #122447 is a reply to message #122186] |
Mon, 15 March 2004 10:12 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: none.us.ibm.com
We need to reduce rather than increase the number of fields in Figure.
"Matt" <mattscar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c30sei$bc0$1@eclipse.org...
> Hi all,
>
> I think it would make life a lot easier if Figures (or perhaps a subclass,
> NodeFigures) held a member ArrayList containing their ConnectionAnchors,
> the names of the anchors, their relative positions, and orientations (IN,
> OUT, or BOTH). It just seems that there has to be an easier way of
> managing these objects than what's currently available. Just a thought.
>
> Also, I missed Randy's request for assistance. If he would be so kind as
> to re-post or reply, I'll pay greater attention.
>
> Matt
>
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.23342 seconds
Home