Yes, exactly.
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:09 AM, Marcel wrote:
>
> I think I see what you mean: we would automatically pull the record
> out of the collection and display it separately. It could end up
> being part of more than one collection. That would give a much more
> sophisticated view of the data. Good idea. I was stuck in "one
> record visible per collection" mode.
>
> Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>> I am going offline for tonight. I'll read the rest of your comment
>> tomorrow. Let me answer this one though.
>>
>> On Jul 12, 2006, at 11:30 PM, Marcel wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by uniquing in this context. Checking
>>> to see if an object (say, a given Artist) is anywhere in the
>>> diagram isn't suitable.
>>
>> I think it is.
>>
>>> Consider Dept and Employee tables, where Dept has n employees and
>>> 1 boss, all drawn from the Employee table. When I expand the
>>> employees relationship, I get a collection of Employee objects
>>> including the boss. When I expand the boss relationship, I don't
>>> want to point to the same visual part (the collection of
>>> Employees) even though the boss is in it.
>>
>> I don't see a problem with this scenario. Collection and its
>> elements can be made separate things visually (and this is what I
>> was trying to say in the previous message). I guess I may need to
>> draw a picture in Photoshop or something to better illustrate what
>> I'm saying. When you expand the boss relationship you point to
>> another employee (who is the boss). Employee, not the collection
>> of employees.
>>
>>> The only alternative I can see to the present setup (which just
>>> expands any relationship the user asks to see expanded, but won't
>>> expand the same relationship twice) is to refuse to expand
>>> relationships which have already been expanded from the other end
>>> (ie if the Dept -> Employee relationship has already been
>>> expanded, clicking on the Dept relationship in the employee table
>>> does nothing).
>>
>> It can do something visual, such as change the color of the
>> relationship arrow and the outline of the target object selected.
>>
>>> But there is no reason to refuse this: if that's what the user
>>> wants to see, why not let them?
>>
>> Because it would incorrectly represent the graph. It will show
>> multiple nodes where there is one. Besides we are not preventing
>> the user from seeing the node he wants to see. We are just
>> pointing him to the right place, saying "see, it is already opened".
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Jul 13 2006 - 10:19:13 EDT