| Connection behind node [message #155318] |
Sat, 23 October 2004 17:33  |
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 #155649 is a reply to message #155597] |
Tue, 26 October 2004 10:58  |
| 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 13:00 |
| 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 13:28 |
| 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 0.02701 seconds
Home