| Connection behind node [message #155318] |
Sat, 23 October 2004 21:33  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: meowmeow64.yahoo.co.kr
I searched archive regarding how to make connection appear behind node.
There is bunch of bits and piece informaions.
is there definite guide on this? what is best approach?
I am trying to modify code on emf-gef tutorial example.
Any input would be appreciated.
|
|
|
| Re: Connection behind node [message #155416 is a reply to message #155318] |
Mon, 25 October 2004 03:57  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: none.us.ibm.com
I don't understand you objective. Connections go between 2 nodes, not
behind them. Are you talking about z-order?
"john Lee" <meowmeow64@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message
news:cleint$c9s$1@eclipse.org...
> I searched archive regarding how to make connection appear behind node.
> There is bunch of bits and piece informaions.
>
> is there definite guide on this? what is best approach?
>
> I am trying to modify code on emf-gef tutorial example.
>
> Any input would be appreciated.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Connection behind node [message #155597 is a reply to message #155416] |
Tue, 26 October 2004 08:09 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: meowmeow64.yahoo.co.kr
Sorry Randy, I should have been more clear.
like layers again post, I want the connections _not_ to be layered on
top of my nodes, but want them behind them
Manhattan router works great for my project. The one problem is that when
I make a lot of connection between nodes, figures get covered with
connection lines. I wish figure can hide any connection which intersects
with figure.
is layers again post method best approach?
According to layers again post,
1. In FreeformGraphicalRootEditPart#createFigure() the layers are added,
changing the order if adding (e.g. adding the connection layer first in
a subclass)
2. make all layers transparent and editpart figures transparent.
3. in order for targetting work,
subclassed FreeformLayer for edit part figure and overwrirte the methods
findFigureAtExcluding and containsPoint.
is this right approach?
Thanks for your help and your wonderful project.
Randy Hudson wrote:
> I don't understand you objective. Connections go between 2 nodes, not
> behind them. Are you talking about z-order?
> "john Lee" <meowmeow64@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message
> news:cleint$c9s$1@eclipse.org...
> > I searched archive regarding how to make connection appear behind node.
> > There is bunch of bits and piece informaions.
> >
> > is there definite guide on this? what is best approach?
> >
> > I am trying to modify code on emf-gef tutorial example.
> >
> > Any input would be appreciated.
> >
> >
|
|
|
| Re: Connection behind node [message #155649 is a reply to message #155597] |
Tue, 26 October 2004 14:58 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: none.us.ibm.com
That solution is probably workable. However, if connections go under a
node, how can the user visually tell the difference between a connection
which stops AT a node, vs. a connection which looks like it stops at a node,
but actually goes UNDER the node?
If you look at ShortestPathConnectionRouter in our latest builds, you will
find a router where connections never cross over nodes. If you avoid the
problem, you don't have to change the order.
"john Lee" <meowmeow64@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message
news:cll0o2$ltg$1@eclipse.org...
> Sorry Randy, I should have been more clear.
>
> like layers again post, I want the connections _not_ to be layered on
> top of my nodes, but want them behind them
>
> Manhattan router works great for my project. The one problem is that when
> I make a lot of connection between nodes, figures get covered with
> connection lines. I wish figure can hide any connection which intersects
> with figure.
> is layers again post method best approach?
>
> According to layers again post,
>
> 1. In FreeformGraphicalRootEditPart#createFigure() the layers are added,
> changing the order if adding (e.g. adding the connection layer first in
> a subclass)
>
> 2. make all layers transparent and editpart figures transparent.
>
> 3. in order for targetting work,
> subclassed FreeformLayer for edit part figure and overwrirte the methods
> findFigureAtExcluding and containsPoint.
>
> is this right approach?
>
> Thanks for your help and your wonderful project.
>
>
> Randy Hudson wrote:
>
> > I don't understand you objective. Connections go between 2 nodes, not
> > behind them. Are you talking about z-order?
>
> > "john Lee" <meowmeow64@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message
> > news:cleint$c9s$1@eclipse.org...
> > > I searched archive regarding how to make connection appear behind
node.
> > > There is bunch of bits and piece informaions.
> > >
> > > is there definite guide on this? what is best approach?
> > >
> > > I am trying to modify code on emf-gef tutorial example.
> > >
> > > Any input would be appreciated.
> > >
> > >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Connection behind node [message #155763 is a reply to message #155649] |
Tue, 26 October 2004 17:00 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: meowmeow64.yahoo.co.kr
Thanks for response.
> That solution is probably workable. However, if connections go under a
> node, how can the user visually tell the difference between a connection
> which stops AT a node, vs. a connection which looks like it stops at a node,
> but actually goes UNDER the node?
I have input node and output node. I visually indicated with arrow showing
inputs and outputs. However, I am afraid I might run into other issues
with this approach since gef seems not designed for this kind of approach.
> If you look at ShortestPathConnectionRouter in our latest builds, you will
> find a router where connections never cross over nodes. If you avoid the
> problem, you don't have to change the order.
is there a way to provide bended straight line with
ShortestPathConnectionRouter like Manhattan router provides?
Again, thank you very much for your time and response
Randy Hudson wrote:
> That solution is probably workable. However, if connections go under a
> node, how can the user visually tell the difference between a connection
> which stops AT a node, vs. a connection which looks like it stops at a node,
> but actually goes UNDER the node?
> If you look at ShortestPathConnectionRouter in our latest builds, you will
> find a router where connections never cross over nodes. If you avoid the
> problem, you don't have to change the order.
|
|
|
| Re: Connection behind node [message #155770 is a reply to message #155763] |
Tue, 26 October 2004 17:28 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: none.us.ibm.com
"john Lee" <meowmeow64@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message
news:cllvr5$u98$1@eclipse.org...
> Thanks for response.
>
> > That solution is probably workable. However, if connections go under a
> > node, how can the user visually tell the difference between a connection
> > which stops AT a node, vs. a connection which looks like it stops at a
node,
> > but actually goes UNDER the node?
>
> I have input node and output node. I visually indicated with arrow showing
> inputs and outputs. However, I am afraid I might run into other issues
> with this approach since gef seems not designed for this kind of approach.
Not sure what you mean there. Certainly we support arrows on the ends of
connections.
>
> > If you look at ShortestPathConnectionRouter in our latest builds, you
will
> > find a router where connections never cross over nodes. If you avoid
the
> > problem, you don't have to change the order.
>
> is there a way to provide bended straight line with
> ShortestPathConnectionRouter like Manhattan router provides?
A shortest-orthogonal-path router or algorithm does not exist in GEF.
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03806 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
