<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
El 06/14/2008 01:26 AM, Natanael Olaiz escribió:
<blockquote cite="mid:48534865.5010002@gmail.com" type="cite">El
06/13/2008 02:50 PM, David García Garzón escribió:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">This days i've been using the annotator for
connecting massive networks. Definitely, the cut and paste feature is
great for that (and it will be even more usefull when the positions
patch is applied).
<br>
<br>
But, the feature i feel hard to use is the new connect-to context menu.
We are substituting a hard-to-aim connecting interface with a
hard-to-control 3 levels contextual menu. Most processing have just a
single connectable port so the last level is not that usefull but
nagging.
<br>
<br>
Several alternatives to connection come to my mind:
<br>
<br>
A) Having 'Processing.port' pairs in the Connect-to submenu instead of
two levels of selection. This could be very populated but is faster to
use.
<br>
<br>
B) A mid way 'Connect to' submenu that just contains processings. If
the processing just has one compatible port it just connects it. If it
has more than one port, a selection dialog appears to select the ports.
Multiple selection could be available, which might be also convenient.
<br>
<br>
C) A 'drag wire to processing' feature. Dragging a wire onto a
processing it would work as selecting such a processing in the previous
option.
<br>
<br>
D) A 'Connect to...' context menu option, that opens a selection dialog
with all the compatible Procesing.Port options. Multiple selection also
useful here. The benefits of this one is that it is very easy to
connect one port to a lot of ports in different processings.
<br>
<br>
They all are easy to implement as most of the code is already there on
the current connect-to menu implementation. If Natanael is busy with
other tasks i could implement one or two of them.
<br>
<br>
Any strong feeling in favor of any of them? I specially like C and D.
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I vote for D or B. A is faster, but it could be really popullated.
About C, I don't like so much the dragging of cables... but anyways,
that option is not exclusive of the others.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Harder to implement, but.... what about a konqueror "CTRL" alike
shortcut? If you press the shortcut, every port/control is labeled with
a key. When you press one of the keys, that port/control is selected as
a source, and refresh the labels to only the compatible targets and
show the status in the status bar. That until you connect to a target,
or press the shortcut again to cancel the operation.<br>
<br>
The main problem with that is how to label if you have so many
ports/control... Would be the letters/numbers enough?<br>
<br>
For those who doesn't know that Konqueror feature, here is a screenshot:<br>
<img alt="" src="cid:part1.07060405.03090806@gmail.com" height="586"
width="850"><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:48534865.5010002@gmail.com" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Clam-devel mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Clam-devel@llistes.projectes.lafarga.org">Clam-devel@llistes.projectes.lafarga.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://llistes.projectes.lafarga.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clam-devel">https://llistes.projectes.lafarga.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clam-devel</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>