I'd really love to see (1) attribute table, (2) relationship table, (3) object editor all in one view. I think we can save space by avoiding lots of columns and using longer text labels and icons. E.g.:
myProperty : String <MY_PROPERTY> <lock_icon> myRel: SomeEntity myCollectionRel: List<SomeEntity> The only reason individual properties of attributes/relationships are in cells now is cause they are editable. Since they won't be editable in the new version, we can come up with compact labels. Andrus > On Mar 29, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Michael Gentry <blackn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 2. A three panel view. So, Michael's design but with the additional >> properties to the right rather than at the bottom. >> >> This sort of approach is common in email. Tree of mailboxes to the left. >> List of messages in the middle and the details to the right. We'd have >> domain/map/objentities in the left tree. Attributes in the middle. Options >> to the right. >> >> Pros: >> >> * Left tree is simpler than in option 1 >> * Shows hierarchy better than option 0 (Michael's mockup) >> >> >> Cons >> * Middle panel (list of attributes) would need to have fewer columns than >> we do now in order to keep the width to a minimum. >> * Not as flexible as option 1 >> * combination of tree and multi-panel approach might be confusing >> > > > I thought about doing this, too, but it felt like it would be too wide and > I like the idea of the attributes table showing me a lot of the information > at-a-glance. (Admittedly, can't really get the JavaDocs/etc in the table, > but at least the names/types/locking can be seen quite readily.) You > mention e-mail...my Apple Mail layout is set up very similar to this > prototype's layout (mailboxes left, messages in mailbox upper right, > message thread for selected message lower right). I suppose with > wide-screen monitors more popular now, three columns might be doable, but I > think there is a lot of value in seeing the names/types/locking information > pretty readily, too, without needing additional work.
