[kepler-dev] problems with annotations

[Shawn Bowers]

The following comment may be coming from far left field, but I have
never quite understood why a change request as it is currently defined
in ptolemy requires the passing of a MoML XML string.

In particular, it is confusing to me as a developer why I have to deal
with *both* the object model of ptolemy/kepler as well as the
serialization syntax of the part of the object model I'm
instantiating or modifying.

I think it would be more convenient to pass *objects* to change
request, not XML serializations of the things I want to update.

Does that make sense?

Thanks,
-shawn


Edward A. Lee wrote:
> At 08:01 AM 10/26/2005 -0700, Christopher Brooks wrote:
>> Your design of using EmptyChangeRequest seems reasonable, though
>> it seems to point out a bug in the Ptolemy code.
> 
> I don't think it's a bug in the Ptolemy code.
> The reason that EmptyChangeRequest works is that after
> any change request, the model gets redrawn.  This is
> a very brute-force way to react to change requests,
> and in fact is very costly (even changes that have no
> visible side effects will trigger a redraw).
> Thus, the real problem is long term: If we fix Ptolemy II
> so that redraws occur only when necessary, then the
> EmtpyChangeRequest will no longer do what you want...
> 
> Edward
> 
> 
> 
> ------------
> Edward A. Lee
> Professor, Chair of the EE Division, Associate Chair of EECS
> 231 Cory Hall, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720
> phone: 510-642-0253 or 510-642-0455, fax: 510-642-2845
> eal at eecs.Berkeley.EDU, http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/~eal  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kepler-dev mailing list
> Kepler-dev at ecoinformatics.org
> http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/kepler-dev