Peter Kolbus wrote
> First: My experience so far has been that Prefuse can create simple
> shapes (boxes, ellipses, etc) and does an excellent job with those in
> forced ("spring-loaded") layouts, but won't be appropriate for shapes as
> complex as UML classes and components, since Prefuse shapes are defined
> via enumeration (Constants.SHAPE_*) rather than subclassing.
>
I know. In fact:
a) Boxes are enough to generate simple graphs (of classes, of
dependencies, of xml schema).
b) I think - I can write my own Renderer class - that will support
UML-like borders (the CONSTANT.SHAPE_ - is mostly too
inform prefuse about area of the object - for collisions
c) We can use only "simple" renderer to prepare only outline. And
then (in far feature) use the coordinates to prepare UML (XMI) file.
> A second concern that I have for Piotr with the use of Prefuse for
> static diagrams is that Prefuse uses the AWT for rendering; this may
> cause problems on a UNIX build host that doesn't have a running X
> server. This is based on a vague memory, but it bears testing if this
> sort of environment is a priority.
>
I hope I can use the layout algorithms without any display (swing) - but
calculate
the coordinates - and use them - to render image.
> Finally, in static diagrams, there is a certain polish provided by
> snapping shapes to a grid, and having shapes that align with each
> other. With Prefuse, the user immediately gets the sense that edges in
> the graph are springs, so the smoothness of the animation gets a higher
> priority.
>
If user don't like the automatic layout - he will have to lock all
nodes... - and he
will get exactly what he want.
> I can't say that I have any better toolkits in mind, though, so I'm not
> going to argue whether Prefuse is the best platform available for the job.
>
> Peter
>
Piotr
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
