[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fenfire-dev] Mudyc's merge request
From: |
Matti Katila |
Subject: |
Re: [Fenfire-dev] Mudyc's merge request |
Date: |
Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:47:15 +0200 (EET) |
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Matti Katila wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> > "PlaneContent"?
> >
> > We were discussing this piece of architecture but I really
> > don't think this interface and implementation are a good idea.
> > What I meant is that AbstractMainNode should have an extra
> > variable,
>
> I don't think that this is very easy to implement since we keep jumping
> from mainnode to another one. I will try to add argument contentView to
> AbstractMainNode's constructor.
>
> >
> > /** The View2D that is the logical "content" of
> > * the plane rendered by this MainNode.
> > */
> > View2D planeContentView2D;
> >
> > and (with corresponding javadocs)
> >
> > View2D getPlaneContentView()
> >
> > Making an extra object that still uses the "getChildView" trick
> > to get the view isn't IMHO a good solution.
Ok, the changes start from AbstractNodeType2D where attributes
protected View2D view2d;
protected AbstractMainNode2D.Factory mainNodeFactory;
are listed. Then it affects to NodeType2D(Full) and then we can fix
AbstractMainNode. I think it affects also in other places.
I'm not at all with this!!
-Matti