Re: New Shapeset -- What Will I Need To Do...?

[Lars Clausen <lrclause cs uiuc edu>]

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Tim Ellis wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:18:26 +0200
> Cyrille Chepelov <cyrille@chepelov.org> wrote:
> 
>> > First thing to do is to try avoiding GTK whatsoever.  If you can
>> > create the
>> 
>> [snip] heh, you beat me!
> 
> I asked in the past how I could recreate the UML functionality using
> normal Dia constructs and someone (sorry, can't remember who) said that
> consensus among Dia developers was that it's easier to implement UML
> functionality using GTK than to try using the One Dia Way, because UML
> does so much.
> 
> I'd be drastically relieved if it turns out that using the One Dia Way is
> better, because it seems so much more understandable and usable than GTK
> programming.
> 
> Are you two (Cyrille & Lars) sure about this?
> 
> Can the One Dia Way actually implement all the functionality of, say, the
> UML Class properties dialogue (add 6 attributes and 6 operations with 2
> parameters each)? If you still say YES, then great! I'll get to hacking.

Picking, say, the one dialog that does more than the properties currently
can: No (as far as I know -- Cyrille has been known to surprise me:).  But
we can get very close.  And my argument from before still stand:  Learn
how to do the other things involved in shape building first, then, if you
find you need to, add GTK dialogs.  You may, at that point, find it easier
to ask us to extend the properties than to implement the dialogs:)  Trying
to start out with a difficult dialog is an almost certain way to be
overwhelmed by complexity.

-Lars

-- 
Lars Clausen (http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause)| Hårdgrim of Numenor
"I do not agree with a word that you say, but I   |----------------------------
will defend to the death your right to say it."   | Where are we going, and
    --Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrasing Voltaire  | what's with the handbasket?