> From: Lars Clausen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: 2003/08/13 Wed AM 11:28:59 EDT
> On 13 Aug 2003, email@example.com wrote:
> > This seems related to the current discussion on views. A layer is a
> > piecewise disjoint subset of objects (please correct me if I'm wrong
> > here--I don't use layers that much) in which the object positions are
> > fixed.
> That's one way to describe it. Also, there is a z-ordering on the layers.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what's z-ordering?
> > A view (as I am proposing it) would be an arbitrary subset of
> > objects in which the object positions are allowed (but not required) to
> > vary. Effectively an independent diagram with the restriction that the
> > included objects must be a subset of the "base" diagram.
> > I've been thinking, and I was wondering if it would cause anyone pain if
> > we extended the current Dia view function to the description above?
> So as you change from view to view, the same object may have different
But is not required to have different positions. The default is every object has the same position as it has on the base diagram.
> That sounds complex. It means that an object no longer just
> has one position, like many things assume, but have a number of possible
> positions depending on the view.
It is complex, but it's really the only practical way to decompose complex UML or ER diagrams that represent "spaghetti-code" legacy systems (which wind up looking like, well, spaghetti). I don't think it's too bad really (I say this before I attempt to implement it of course). n subdiagrams of a diagram.
> > It seems like I could do it so that the basic original view capability is
> > preserved. There would probably be some additional interface complexity,
> > but I think the end result would be more useful than current views.
> Right now, I'm not sure it's worth the additional effort, it'd be a major
> code change.
OK. I'll twiddle around with it for my own use for now.