RE: [cgmo-webcgm] What to do with WebCGMMatrix

["Bezaire, Benoit" <bbezaire@ptc.com>]

I wasn't proposing to remove getTransform() All I'm saying is that I do not believe many script writers will venture in that area. Regardless, here is the WebCGMMatrix proposal

 

interface WebCGMMatrix {

    attribute float a;

    attribute float b;

    attribute float c;

    attribute float d;

    attribute float e;

    attribute float f;

 

WebCGMMatrix multiply (in WebCGMMatrix m);

WebCGMMatrix inverse(); // raises exception

WebCGMMatrix translate( in float x, in float y );

WebCGMMatrix scale( in float sx, in float sy );

WebCGMMatrix rotate( in float angle, in float rx, in float ry );

};

 

I would then replace WebCGMAppStructure::translate(), rotate(), scale() and matrix() for a new API WebCGMAppStructure::setTransform ( in WebCGMMatrix, in WebCGMString replace );

 

getTransform() would return a WebCGMMatrix.

 

And we need a new API either on the Picture or Metafile interface ::createWebCGMMatrix (it returns a new WebCGMMatrix initialize to the identity matrix).

 

Questions:

1) Should attributes a..f be read only (i.e., the idea is to prevent the user from messing up matrix)?

2) Do we need other methods on the WebCGMMatrix interface?

3) WebCGMAppStructure methods, translate, scale, rotate and matrix are gone, what do people think of that?

 

Regards,

Benoit

---

From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:34 PM
To: Bezaire, Benoit; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] What to do with WebCGMMatrix

I tend to agree with Dieter, although I am not an 
experienced practitioner in DOM programming.

However, I also have a 
procedural/timing concern.  I'm thinking that this is not best timing to 
discuss removing getTransform() -- unless everyone were enthusiastically 
unanimous to do so -- as we are trying to prepare CD02 text.  (Recall that 
there are small windows for technical adjustment in the WG; and then the TC 
approves any substantive changes when the work comes back from the 
W3C.)

If we don't remove the getTransform() now, then we need to have a 
parameterization of the return value.  Which means either array matrix[6] 
or interface WebCGMMatrix.  (Rob has concerns about whether such return 
type as matrix[6] is supported by IE, regardless of whether it is valid in IDL 
and ECMAScript.)

Let's discuss further (on Wednesday, if not 
here).

-Lofton.

At 02:39 PM 6/9/2008 -0400, Weidenbrueck, Dieter 
wrote:

Benoit,
 
I think it is needed. If you request the current transform of an object you have no idea what it might be, and very easily it may be a complex matrix resulting from multiple transforms (in fact, this should be the default case for even a simple rotation).
So if you want to concatenate transforms (e.g. a rotation) and be able to restore the result before the concatenation, you can only use a matrix IMO.
 
Regards,
Dieter

---

From: Bezaire, Benoit [mailto:bbezaire@ptc.com]
Sent: Montag, 9. Juni 2008 13:58
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] What to do with WebCGMMatrix

Hi All,
 
I honestly don't know if we need WebCGMMatrix. The methods (translate, rotate, scale, matrix) may not the "prettiest" from a coding stand-point, but I think they get the job done.
 
Personally, I think very few users will use matrix() and getTransform(), so I don't know if it justifies a new WebCGMMatrix interface.
 
I think it makes more sense to add a WebCGMRect interface than a WebCGMMatrix interface.
 
Thoughts on this?
 
If many of you want WebCGMMatrix in, I can add it; but I get the impression I'm alone on this one.
 
Benoit.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.1.0/1492 - Release Date: 6/9/2008 10:29 AM