Re: [Fenfire-dev] Mudyc's merge request

[Matti Katila]

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